1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.225 of 2010 ( Fauziya Afreen Syed Ubad Ali -: versus :- Urooj-E-Urdu Education Soc. and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.P. Thakare, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Kadukar, Advocate for the respondent No.1, Mr. A. Thomas, Advocate h/f Mr. M. Shareef, Advocate for the respondent No.4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 6, 2010. 1. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. In the present petition the order of School Tribunal dated 29-10-2009 has challenged, whereby application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 9(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 has been rejected. 3. Shri Thakare, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that after termination of service of petitioner on 1- 8-2007, the petitioner approached to the Grievance Committee on 27-1-2008 and Grievance Committee also prohibited management from filling the vacancy. The said appeal was withdrawn on 17-8-2009 and on 4-9-2009 it was 2 presented before the School Tribunal. In the circumstances, the delay ought to have been condoned as till date vacancy is not filled. 4. Shri A. Thomas, learned Advocate for the respondent No.4-Secretary (now elected as President) is opposing the prayers. He points out that in application for condonation of delay as filed only period from 17-8-2009 to 4-9-2009 at the most has been explained. He contends that the termination dated 1-8-2007 was assailed before the Grievance Committee almost after one year and that delay has not been explained either before the Grievance Committee or before the School Tribunal. In the circumstances, it is his contention that application as filed has been rightly rejected. 5. Shri Kadukar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 states that he is still awaiting instructions. 6. It is apparent that the Grievance Committee had entertained appeal as filed by the petitioner and interim releif was also given to him. 7. After the hearing of Advocate Shri Thomas and Advocate Shri Thakuar, prima facie it appears that situation had not become irreversible till 4-9-2009. In the circumstances, I am inclined to permit petitioner to file proper application for condonation of delay before the School Tribunal as a fresh opportunity. 3 8. The petitioner shall in exercise of this liberty file application before School Tribunal within a period of three weeks from today. 9. With this liberty to petitioner the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE adgokar