1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6684 OF 2009 The Head Master, Kurukali High School and Ano .. Petitioners Vs Shri. Dattatraya Balu Salunkhe and Ors .. Respondents Rahul P. Walvekar i/b Abhijit M. Adagule for the petitioners CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 8th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ­ educational institution. This petition is directed against the order dated 16th July, 2009 passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2007. By the said order, delay in preferring the appeal by the present respondent came to be condoned. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that delay is of 11 years, 1 month and 5 days and it being an inordinate delay, it ought not to have been condoned. Moreover, he submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of such RMA wp6684­09.sxw 2 inordinately long period of delay. The learned counsel further submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out by the respondent in order to condone the delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only reason that the respondent has furnished for delay is that the cause of appeal has taken place on 1st June, 1996 and the appellant has filed the appeal before the School Tribunal on 6th August, 2007. 3. The respondent was working as a teacher with the petitioner. He came to be superseded and some other person was appointed to the post of head master. Being aggrieved thereby, he approached the civil court. It is seen that thereafter the matter went to the District Court and ultimately it came to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 115 of 2005. The second appeal came to be disposed of by this court by order dated 12th June, 2007. In the said order, this court observed that "the appeal is therefore, dismissed in limine and the respective parties are left with the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 before the School Tribunal. If such an appeal is filed within a period of eight weeks from today, it is directed to be expedited. In the meanwhile status quo as of now RMA wp6684­09.sxw 3 shall be maintained and it is made clear that the appeal to be filed by any of the parties will have to be decided by the School Tribunal on its own merits and without being influenced by the observations made in the order." 4. It is an admitted fact that the appeal has been filed by the respondent within the stipulated period of eight weeks and there is no delay on his part in preferring the appeal. As far as the order dated 12th June, 2007 is concerned, this court has clearly granted liberty to the respondent to prefer the appeal and the Tribunal has also been directed to dispose of the appeal on its own merit. It is seen that the respondent has been agitating his grievance and trying to get the same redressed since 1996 though before the wrong forum. In view of directions of this court in second appeal no. 115 of 2005, the School Tribunal has to dispose of the appeal on merits. In view of the said order, the School Tribunal does not have any other choice except disposing of the appeal on merits and to dispose of the appeal on merit, it would be necessary to condone the delay. Looking to the facts of the case and especially the order of the High Court dated 12th June, 2007, no interference is called RMA wp6684­09.sxw 4 for in the order of the School Tribunal dated 16th July, 2009 whereby delay in preferring the appeal by the respondent came to be condoned. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA wp6684­09.sxw