1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5978 of 2011 Shri Dhanappa Shivaningappa Birajdar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5342 of 2011 Shri Chandrakant Vasant Kadam ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5984 of 2011 Shri Jalinder Ramchandra Shembade ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5986 of 2011 Shri Dasharath Mhalappa Masal ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5990 of 2011 Shri Kuber Kondiba Dhadas ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5991 of 2011 Shri Rajesh Tukaram Vadar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5996 of 2011 Shri Ramchandra Bhanudas Karande ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7420 of 2011 Netaji M. Nanagure ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent 3 W.P.No. 7420/2011 not on Board, on mentioning taken on board. Mr.Machindra Patil for the Petitioner Mr.P.G.Sawant “B” Panel Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.S.S.Pakale i/b. Mr.Avinash Balge for the Respondent No.3 CORAM:- A.V.NIRGUDE J. DATED:- 17th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. All these petitions can be decided by a common judgment at the admission stage. These writ petitions are so decided by consent of both parties. 2. These writ petitions are filed under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.6.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, refusing to condone the delay of 6 years and 7 months in filing of the appeals against the order of termination. The facts leading to the litigation are admitted and are sufficient to prove that the petitioners were prevented from filing appeals in time due to inept handling of their cases by their legal advisor. 3. It so happened that, in the year 2002 December, the petitioners were dismissed by the management of the school, but the Management itself lost power and control over the society because Administrator 4 was appointed. The Administrator took the decision not to terminate the petitioners and asked them to resume their duties. In view of this, the earlier order of termination was set at naught. Yet the petitioners appeals against such orders of termination were kept pending even after the petitioners were taken back in employment. After few months, the Administrator relegated his responsibility and the the trustees took over the management. They again passed an order of termination all the petitioners. However, the petitioners, most probably due to incorrect advise given to them by their Advocate did not challenge that order of termination by filing separate appeals. 4. As said above, their earlier appeals were still pending. For 6 ½ years no one moved the court saying that the appeals be dismissed because they were infructuous. Against such orders, the petitioners filed the writ petitions in this court and probably at that stage the petitioners realized that they ought to have filed fresh appeals against the order terminating them passed after the trustees took over. The writ petitions therefore failed; but this Court gave liberty to the petitioners to file fresh appeals subject to the issue of limitation. 5. Accordingly, the petitioners filed appeals along with the applications seeking condonation of delay. The learned Judge, while appreciating 5 these circumstances observed that the petitioners have not explained the delay properly and held that the delay cannot be condoned only because the petitioners mentioned in the application that the delay was caused due to “technical reason”. Indeed the application did not elaborately state the facts mentioned above. But the facts mentioned above are not unknown either. 6. As said above, the delay occurred because of inept handling of the cases by the petitioners' legal advisor in the lower court. As said above, soon after the reinstatement of the petitioners, first the earlier appeals ought to have been withdrawn being infructuous, and second after the petitioners were again terminated, new appeals ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of termination. If this was no done, the petitioners cannot be blamed for the failure. This was the duty of the legal advisor/advocate appearing for the petitioners in the lower court. For his error, the petitioners cannot be penalized. Having regard to the facts of the case as said above, the facts themselves clearly establish that the petitioners were prevented from filing the appeal due to circumstances which were beyond their control. The learned Presiding Officer ought to have realized this aspect of the matter. The appreciation of the facts by the learned 6 Judge of the Lower Court was grossly erroneous. The delay deserves to be condoned. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, while opposing the application made a statement that in the meantime, the management has appointed new teachers by following procedure. But this has no relevance to the question involved in these petitions. 8. The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. Delay stands condoned. The learned Member of the School Tribunal shall decide the appeals as soon as possible. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)