1 23 wp 2291.11.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2291 OF 2011 Umberkhind Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others ..Petitioners. Vs. Shri Mangesh Shankar Patil & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. S.V. Pitre for petitioner. Mr. Chandrakant Bidkar for respondent no.1. Mr. S.D.Rairikar, AGP for respondent nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 28th April, 2011. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner seeks liberty to delete the name of respondent no.2 in writ petition. Liberty granted. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. 3 By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-original respondent employer challenges the order dated 14th January, 2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune below Exhibit 1 in Miscellaneous Application no. 14 of 2011 2 23 wp 2291.11.doc condoning the delay in filing the appeal by respondent no.1 under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred as ‘the said Act’). 4 A few facts of the matter are as under: Respondent no.1-original applicant filed Appeal under section 9 (3) of the said Act challenging the illegality and validity of the action of termination of his services by the Petitioner-management with effect from 14th June, 2010. There was delay in preferring said Appeal and therefore, respondent no.1 preferred an application for condonation of delay. In that application for condonation of delay, the petitioner filed their affidavit in reply dated 29th August, 2010. In the said reply, the first paragraph reads thus: “1. The contents of paragraphs no.1 of the application are generally true and matter of record.” 5 Considering the reply filed by the petitioner and the Education Officer, the School Tribunal allowed respondent no.1’s application for condonation of delay. 3 23 wp 2291.11.doc 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner made a statement that they have no objection if the delay is condoned by the School Tribunal. However, he submits that the Tribunal while deciding the Appeal on merits should not considered what is stated in the application for condonation of delay and its reply not germane to the issue of condonation. 7 The Petition stands dismissed with the condition mentioned above. (K.K.Tated, J.)