1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5650 OF 2007 Manik A. Chougule. ...Petitioner. Vs. Barrister Balasaheb Khardekar College & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. S.P. Kadam for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. October 10, 2008. P.C. An order of termination was passed against the Petitioner on 30th April 2001. The University Tribunal was moved in an appeal under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 on 2nd December 2005. There was a delay of 1639 days. The Presiding Officer of the University and College Tribunal, by an order dated 20th July 2006, declined to condone the delay. The petition was filed on 13th July 2007, nearly a year after the decision of the Tribunal. The ground which was sought to be made out in paragraph 2 3 of the application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal was that orders of termination were also passed against other teachers and those teachers had challenged the orders of termination. The said teachers had succeeded before the Tribunal. The Petitioner moved the Grievance Committee on 27th December 2003. The Grievance Committee arrived at its decision on 13th July 2005 when the Registrar of the University informed the management that the appointment had not been approved on full-time basis for the Academic Year 2000-01. Thereupon, a Writ Petition, which was filed on behalf of the Petitioner, was dismissed on 9th September 2005 since he had an alternate remedy of moving the Tribunal. The Petitioner has absolutely no explanation for the delay which occurred between the order of termination dated 30th April 2001 until the Grievance Committee was moved on 27th December 2003. Merely because certain other teachers had moved the Tribunal, that was no reason or justification for the Petitioner not to do so. An appeal has to be filed under Section 59(1) within thirty days of the receipt of the order of termination. The Tribunal held that even if the 3 order of termination dated 3rd April 2001 is regarded as being served on the Petitioner on 11th June 2001, namely, from the commencement of the new Academic Year, the delay was not satisfactorily explained. As already noted above, the Petitioner chose to stand by and it was on 7th December 2003 that he moved the Grievance Committee. The appeal was filed on 2nd December 2005. In the circumstances, though Courts are liberal in matters of condoning delay, in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, it cannot be said that the approach of the Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal suffers from any error apparent on the face of record or from perversity. The view of the Tribunal does call for interference. The petition shall stand dismissed. ....