1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7349 OF 2009 Shirish s/o. Shrawan Patil, Age 41 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. A/t. Waghadi, Post Khirdi, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chairman, Jalgaon District Maratha Vidya Prasarak Co-op. Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. The Secretary, Jalgaon District Maratha Vidya Prasarak Co-op. Samaj Ltd., Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. The Headmasters, Yashwant Vidyalay, Raver, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zhilla Parishad Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Respondents. Shri. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. Kadu h/f. Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No. 4. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 3rd August, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 4th of September 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik , rejecting the application for condonation of delay, caused in filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ( hereinafter referred to as 'M.E.P.S. Act"). 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 11th of November 2009 and in response to the same, the learned counsel Shri. Kadu holding for Shri. V.D. Hon appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned A.G.P. appears for respondent No. 4. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 12.6.1996. It appears from the first complaint dated 12.1.2004, which is at Exh. "B" to the petition, that his services were orally terminated and he was not permitted to sign the muster roll and therefore, he had made representation for sympathetic consideration of his case. On 11.4.2005 similar representation was made and subsequently, representations made from time to time up to 10.1.2009, are annexed to the petition. 3 4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Grievance Committee on 14.1.2009. The said appeal was dismissed by the Grievance Committee on 25.2.2009, holding that it has no jurisdiction. The petitioner thereafter approached the School Tribunal and filed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, challenging the order of termination. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay has been rejected. The same is, therefore, subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 5. The Tribunal has recorded the findings in para 10 and 11 of the order, as under :- "10. It is not in dispute that the appellant had filed appeal before the Grievance Committee being No. 02/2009. It transpires from the averments made in the say filed by the respondents that the appellant had filed said appeal on 14.1.2009. It means there was delay of four years and six months in filing an appeal even before the Grievance Committee. The appellant has not satisfactory explained the said delay. It can be said that the appellant was not vigilant in filing appeal even before the Grievance Committee camp at Aurangabad. 11. Apparently, there is huge and inordinate delay of four years and five months in filing an appeal even before the Grievance Committee. The appellant has not satisfactorily explained the said delay. The appellant was not vigilant in filing an appeal within reasonable period before the Grievance Committee. The cause shown by the appellant/applicant that he was seeking remedy before the management of respondent institute cannot be said to be reasonable and probable one. The appellant and unnecessarily wasted time or killed the time in pursuing the 4 remedy before the management of respondent institute. Moreover, as indicated above there is nothing on record to show that there was response on the part of management of respondent institute to the so called application sent by the appellant to the management of respondent institute through post. It is well setting that the tribunal has jurisdiction to condone the delay, but use of such discretion is circumscribed by the condition that the applicant must demonstrate existence of sufficient cause for not filing an appeal within prescribed period of limitation and there must be some valid reason to other wise condone the delay in view of gross injustice likely to be caused due to rejection of the application. The tribunal can not over look that the law does not help the negligent person, in the instant case as indicated above the applicant was throughout negligent in filing an appeal even before the Grievance Committee. The applicant/appellant has miserably failed to establish that he had sufficient cause for not filing an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation or even within reasonable period, therefore answer point No. 1 in the negative and point No. 2 accordingly, consequently proceed to pass the following order." The Tribunal did not find, the explanation furnished by the petitioner for seeking condonation of delay, as acceptable. It has been held that the order of termination was issued on 6.8.2004. The limitation for filing an appeal expired on 5.9.2004 and the appeal before the Grievance Committee itself was filed on 14.01.2009 i.e. after four years and six months. The management has denied the averments in the application for condonation of delay. Except making representations, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the plea, that the management has given assurance to the petitioner that he will be provided with the work. The Tribunal has held that there is no 5 satisfactory explanation, the appellant was not vigilant in filing an appeal and delay, therefore, caused in filing an appeal, cannot be condoned. In view of this, the contention of the petitioner that sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay, because the petitioner had rendered 6 to 7 years service prior to his termination, cannot be accepted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 494 in the case of Sandeep s/o. Hiralal Netke vs. State of Maharashtra and others. Perusal of the said decision indicates that the authorities under the Government Department had acted upon the representations made by the petitioner. There is exchange of correspondence. As a result of which the petitioner was held to be justified in awaiting the response from the managing committee. Apart from this, whether sufficient cause is made out or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This Court in reported judgment has recorded a finding that sufficient cause has been made out and hence, delay was condoned. The said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. There is no substance in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] 6 ssc/wp7349.09