1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2804 OF 2008 Lata Mohan ..Petitioner. Vs. Maha Mahind International Dhamadoot Society and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Mihir Desai for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Apte i/b Mr. A.A. Garge for Respondent No.2. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondents 3 and 4. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 23rd April, 2008. P.C. : 1. The challenge in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which were instituted on 10th April, 2008 is to an order passed by the School Tribunal almost 14 years ago on 7th May, 1994. 2. The Petitioner was employed by the First Respondent in a primary school on 6th June, 1979. She was appointed as a Headmistress of the primary section on 27th July, 1992. The 2 charge of that post was taken away from the Petitioner and handed over to the Second Respondent on 23rd January, 1993. Thereupon the Petitioner filed an appeal (Appeal 48 of 1993) before the School Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner was promoted once again as a Headmistress on 13th September, 1993. This time, the Second Respondent filed an appeal before the School Tribunal (Appeal 18 of 1994). The appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Tribunal against her reversion was dismissed by a judgment dated 7th May, 1994 on the ground that the Petitioner had not established that she was the senior most teacher. The appeal preferred by the Second Respondent was allowed by the Tribunal on 25th October, 1994. Thereupon, the management sought to revert the Petitioner again to the post of Assistant Teacher on 27th December, 1994. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of reversion. In the meantime, the Petitioner had also filed Writ Petition 600 of 1996 in order to impugn the correctness of the judgment dated 7th May, 1994 and the judgment dated 25th October, 1994 of the School Tribunal. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench 3 by an order dated 1st November, 1996 on the ground that the Petitioner had already availed of the remedy of an appeal which was pending before the School Tribunal. On 27th September, 1999 the School Tribunal held that the reversion of the Petitioner was unlawful. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Second Respondent in a writ petition (Writ Petition 4675 of 2000) which was allowed on 16th December, 2000. The Learned Single Judge set aside the order of the School Tribunal and validated the reversion of the Petitioner. The order of the Learned Single Judge was confirmed in a Letters Patent Appeal on 12th March, 2008. The Division Bench held that the order of the School Tribunal which had been passed in Appeal 48 of 1993 on 7th May, 1994 continued to hold the field and consequently the Learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the Petitioner was not entitled to question the promotion of the Second Respondent herein to the post of Headmistress. 3. The Petition that has now been instituted is to impugn the correctness of the order of the School Tribunal dated 7th May, 4 1994. The Petition cannot be entertained at this belated stage. The Present proceedings have been instituted nearly 14 years after the order dated 7th May, 1994. The Petitioner had in fact impugned the order dated 7th May, 1994 before the Division Bench in a writ petition which was rejected by the Division Bench on 1st November, 1996 on the ground that an appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Tribunal dated 25th October, 1994 was still pending. Even thereafter when the appeal was disposed of on 27th September, 1999 the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 16th December, 2000 validated the reversion of the Petitioner. The delay on the part of the Petitioner has been unexplained. Besides, the Petitioner had already challenged the correctness of the order of the School Tribunal dated 7th May, 1994 before the Division Bench and that Writ Petition having been dismissed on 1st November, 1996 recourse to the present proceedings cannot be availed of. In the circumstances there is no merit in the Petition which shall accordingly stand dismissed. ***** 5