1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6823 OF 2007 Sou. Dipti Arvind Bhalerao ..Petitioner. Vs. The President, Vidya Mahamandal and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. A.G. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr. Suraj P. Saroj i/b Mr. S.V. Pitre for Respondent NO.1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 4. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 31st March, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner who was employed with the First Respondent filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Pune on 1st December, 2006 under the 2 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 in order to challenge the termination of her services. Section 14 of the Act provides that a legal practitioner shall not be entitled to appear before the Tribunal except with the special permission of the Tribunal. On 1st December, 2006 an application was filed under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 43 for permission to enable the Petitioner to engage a legal practitioner to appear on her behalf. Rule 43 empowers the Tribunal to grant permission for the appearance of a legal practitioner where the complexity of the dispute is such as may be beyond the comprehension of either of the parties or a question of law arises in the course of the proceedings. The application was signed by the Petitioner in the U.S. where she was then residing and it was duly notarized there. In the Petition it has been averred that her advocate Mr. A.G. Kulkarni had observed and witnessed the Petitioner executing the application on a web camera. The First and Third Respondents objected to this procedure and sought the rejection of the appeal. By an order dated 27th April, 2007 the School Tribunal came to the conclusion that the proceeding was 3 not instituted in accordance with the practice to be followed under the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was directed to stand disposed of. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged in these proceedings. On behalf of the Petitioner, the attention of the Court has been drawn to Rule 39 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 under which an appeal can be filed either in person or by registered post, acknowledgment due. In the present case, it was submitted that the pleading was duly signed by the Petitioner in the U.S.; it was duly notarized there and the advocate appearing on her behalf had under the authority which was conferred upon him lodged an application for permission to engage a legal practitioner. Now Rule 39(1) postulates that every memorandum of appeal shall be duly signed by the appellant and shall be submitted to the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal personally or by registered post acknowledgment due. The rules are intended to effectuate the object of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appeal was duly signed by the Petitioner and was notarized in the U.S. The Tribunal has adverted to “the practice prevailing here” under which “the client has to personally present 4 appeal/ Application as the case may be before the officer duly appointed for this purpose”. In my view, the procedure which has been followed in the present case constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement of the law. The application has been signed by the Petitioner and duly notarized in the U.S. The Tribunal was therefore in error in taking a rather technical view and holding that in view of the breach of the practice followed by the Tribunal, the appeal could not be entertained. The impugned order dated 27th April, 2007 is quashed and set aside. The Tribunal is directed to take the application on record and to proceed to deal with and dispose of the application in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. *****