1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2007 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2007 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.4125 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.4125 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.4125 OF 2007 Nivrutti Damu Kamble. .. Appellant. vs. Sane Gurujee Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (Trust) & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Ameya Tamhane i/by Seema Sarnaik for Appellant. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP., for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. . Heard. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the School Tribunal rejecting his application for condonation of delay which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge of this Court when the petition came to be dismissed by order dated 22.6.2007 which is 2 impugned in this appeal. We find that the learned Single Judge has considered the facts of the case in order to ascertain as to whether the appellant was entitled for condonation of delay in proper perspective. It was the case of the appellant before the School Tribunal that the respondent no. 5 has been working on the post of Assistant Head Master since the year 2001 and in spite of repeated representations made by the petitioner to the management for appointing him to the said post, his case has not been considered and, therefore, he filed an appeal before the School Tribunal in June, 2005. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the cause of action for filing the appeal arose only after the management communicated their decision on his representations by their letter dated 18.6.2005. He further relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Secretary, Shiorai Education Society, Wani vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad and others, reported in 2000 (2) Mh. L.J. 752 to show that the relief sought for by the petitioner falls under Section 9 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978 for which no period of limitation to prefer an appeal is prescribed. In the very decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge has observed that in such case the aggrieved person should seek 3 relief within a reasonable time. 4. This is not a case where the appellant was not aware of promotion given to respondent no. 5 by the respondent management on 1.12.2001 and, therefore, the cause of action arose on 1.12.2001 and not when the management communicated their decision by their letter dated 18.6.2005 rejecting his representations. 5. The appellant except for making representations, did not challenge the promotion of respondent no. 5 since 1.12.2001 for which there is no justifiable reason given and, therefore, we find that the learned School Tribunal was right in rejecting his application for condonation of delay. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error or illegality in upholding the impugned order by dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. The same is dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.)