1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 834 OF 2009 Shri Nana Pundlik Shinde ...Petitioner vs. Bodhistav Pratishtan & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Y.J. Master for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A. Sawant for Respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.H.V. Kode for Respondent No.3. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 17, 2009 P.C. :- 1 By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in Appeal No. 100/2005. By the said judgment and order dated 16th September, 2008, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts are as under :- 2 The petitioner was appointed as a Peon from 1.7.95 in the respondent school. It is his case that 2 he is eligible to be appointed to the post of Laboratory Attendant in the year 2005 and in 2005, post of Laboratory Attendant has become vacant in the school. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was a senior most Peon and was eligible to be appointed on the post of Laboratory Attendant, the school appointed respondent no.3 who was junior to the petitioner herein since she was appointed on 13th July, 1998 in the school as Peon. It is alleged that since she was related to the Secretary, she was appointed by superseding him. The management filed the reply and stated that in fact, respondent no.3 was appointed as Peon on 14th June, 1997. According to the management, the post of Laboratory Attendant is not a permanent post. It was also contended that the petitioner had given up his claim for the said post. The School Tribunal after perusing the evidence which was brought on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and had not disclosed in his appeal memo that the respondent no.3 was appointed as a 3 Laboratory Attendant from 1.9.2004 and that also suppressed another fact that by letter at Exhibit 19/1, he had given up his claim over the impugned post. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was delay in filing this appeal and no explanation has been offered by the petitioner for the delay caused in filing the appeal. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts from the court and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. 3 Shri Master, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the management had forged and fabricated certain documents. He submitted that the record was manipulated. He submitted that the said letter which was allegedly given by him by giving up his claim to the post of Laboratory Attendant was obtained under coercion and therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said letter. 4 4 In my view, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the management has brought on record the letter of consent given by the petitioner herein to the appointment of the respondent no.3. It is alleged that his signature has been obtained under coercion. In my view, the School Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that this fact had been suppressed by the petitioner in his appeal memo. The Presiding Officer has made a reference to the said letter of consent, which is produced by the management. Even if the said consent had been obtained under coercion, the petitioner was duty bound to disclose this fact in the appeal memo. It was only when the management produced this letter of consent at a belated stage, the stand is taken by the petitioner that his consent was obtained under coercion. Since the petitioner has not disputed his signature on the said letter, it is apparent that 5 the previous management had, in fact, appointed respondent no.3 in 2004 itself. The management also has brought on record the common seniority list which shows that respondent no.3 was appointed in the year 2004 itself. The management has also produced a resolution dated 17th October, 2004 which indicates that respondent no.3 was promoted with effect from 1.9.2004. It is obvious, therefore, that the appeal which is filed by the petitioner herein is barred by the law of limitation and the documents which are produced on record by the respondents clearly reveal that the respondent no.3 was appointed in September, 2004. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order passed by the School Tribunal. No case is made out by the petitioner for interfering with the impugned order while exercising writ jurisdiction of this court. 5 The writ petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)