-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6015 OF 2002 D.B. Zunjar ... Petitioner versus Baban Baburao Garad and others ...Respondents Mr. N.D. Jadhav, instructed by Mr. Nitin Jamdar, for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Utgikar for respondent No.1. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for respondent No.3 CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: AUGUST 06, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31st July, 2002, passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Pune Region, at Solapur, in Appeal No. 68 of 2002. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 herein preferred an appeal challenging the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster as according to the appellant before the Tribunal, he should have been appointed as Headmaster and not the present petitioner. Since there was delay in preferring the appeal, respondent No.1 preferred an application for condonation of delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has condoned the delay by imposing cost of Rs. 500/-. The -2- petitioner, who is respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, has challenged the said order of the Tribunal on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out by the original appellant for condonation of delay. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has challenged the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the appellant before the Tribunal should have been appointed as Headmaster in the institution. The said issue is still pending before the Tribunal. However, since there was a delay, the Tribunal has considered the question of condonation of delay and ultimately condoned the same with a view to decide the real controversy on merits. The impugned order of the Tribunal, in my view, is not required to be interfered with in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Because of pendency of this petition, the Tribunal has not proceeded further with the main appeal which is of 2002. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly found that the delay is required to be condoned and the main controversy is required to be decided on merits. Considering the said aspect, in my view, the impugned order is not required to be interfered with and the Tribunal should be directed to decide the controversy on merits. 4. In view thereof, this petition is dismissed. The Tribunal may now -3- proceed with the hearing of the main appeal at the earliest and try to dispose of the same within six months from today. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. No order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.