1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6452 OF 2008 Govind S/o.Prabhu Yadav PETITIONER VERSUS The Secretary, Khedi and Gramin Vikas Samajik Sanstha and others RESPONDENTS Mr.M.V.Ghatge, advocate for petitioner Mr.S.G.Rudrawar, advocate for respondent no.1 & 2 Mr.K.J.Ghutepatil, AGP for respondent no. 3 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 12/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India, the present petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 04/09/2008, passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Latur in Appeal Memo No. 10/2008. By the said M.A., the applicant petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay of 4 years 7 months and 3 days in preferring an appeal against the order of oral termination dated 27/06/2003 w.e.f. 28/06/2003 passed by the respondents. 2. By the reasoned order dated 04/09/2008, this application for 2 condonation of delay was rejected by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur. 3. Heard advocate for petitioner applicant followed by the arguments of learned advocate appearing for the respondent and AGP. Also perused the impugned order under challenge. Much reliance is placed by the applicant petitioner on the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Sub-District Hospital, Parali Vaijnath, dated 02/10/2007. On clear perusal of this medical certificate, one can find certain fishy things. First on clear perusal of this medical certificate, it nowhere indicates that the Certificate Issuing Authority were giving the medical treatment to the person to whom they have issued the medical certificate. As on clear reading of this medical certificate, it nowhere found the place that the petitioner was taking the treatment in the Sub-District Hospital during the period for which the certificate was issued. Secondly the period of bed rest if considered then, it is the period of more than 4 years. Whether during this period of 4 years, the petitioner was bed ridden or not or whether his movements were totally restricted and he can not move anywhere, this certificate is silent on this aspect and lastly and most importantly, when the medical certificate is issued by the Medical Officer of the Government Dispensary, as the Sub-District Hospital is a Government Dispensary, there shall be an outward no. of this medical certificate ought to have find somewhere by way of reference in the medical certificate as this outward no. relates to the entries mentioned in the record maintained in the Government 3 Medical Hospital. As the entries in this register do no indicates whether the patient was taking treatment as indoor patient or outdoor patient, in the premise, this certificate itself is doubtful. The days consumed thereafter till 01/10/2007 are explained in para no.4 & 5 of the application that as the petitioner applicant was collecting the documents, there was delay. The question arose if the termination of the petitioner applicant is on oral termination, then no question arise to collect any document as no annexures are found alongwith the appeal memo. Considering this background and after perusal of the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, I do not find any perversity in that order as no fault find in the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur while rejecting the application for condonation of delay. No interference is required in the said order. 4. In the premise, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of any merit as limine. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp6452-08