1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7154 OF 2009 Venkatesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Latur Through its Secretary Sheshrao Madharao Jadhav and Anr. ....Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents. Shri. U.S. Bondhar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Shri. N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 15.12.2001 passed in Appeal No. 361/1996 filed by the respondent No. 3/employee. The School Tribunal by the impugned order has set aside the termination of the respondent No. 3 from service as an Assistant Teacher by an order dated 18.11.1996 and the petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent No. 3 with 50% of backwages. 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 4th November 2009, in response to which Shri. N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar) appears for respondent No. 3. The learned A.G.P. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi appears for the respondent No. 1. All other parties are served. Since the execution 2 proceedings were filed by the respondent No. 3, which were brought to the notice of this Court, the order impugned in this petition was stayed by this Court on 24th of March 2010. 3. The order impugned in this petition was passed on 15.12.2001. The instant writ petition has been filed on 12.10.2009. Thus, there is delay of about 8 years caused in filing the petition. The reasons given for such delay in para 5 and 6 are extracted below :- "The petitioners further submit that though the Honourable Presiding Officer delivered the judgment on 15th December 2001 the appellant nor his advocate nor the respondent no. 3 has made the said judgment and order available to the present petitioners. The petitioners could come to know that the said appeal has been decided in favour of the present respondent no. 3 only after receiving the notice of execution filed by the respondent no. 3 before the Honourable Presiding Officer, School Tribunal at Latur by which petitioners were asked to remain present before the School Tribunal at Latur on 5.10.2009. Hereto annexed and marked at Exhibit "D" is the true copy of the notice. 6. The petitioners say and submit that petitioners remained present before the School Tribunal on 5.10.2009 as directed through notice, then he came to know that the execution proceedings has been filed by the present respondent no. 3 by which he has claimed reinstatement along with back wages. He has also claimed amount of Rs. 11,44,403/- as back wages along with interest. Hereto annexed and marked at Exhibit-E is the true copy of the execution proceeding filed before the School Tribunal at Latur." The learned counsel has urged that the petitioner came to know 3 about the judgment and order dated 15.12.2001 for the first time on 5.10.2009 when they were directed to appear before the School Tribunal in execution proceedings and hence, the present petition has been filed. According to the learned counsel, the delay caused was for sufficient and bona fide reasons. 4. It is not in dispute that in earlier round of litigation, arising out of the same appeal No. 361/1996 filed by the respondent No. 3, Writ Petition No. 1508/2000 was preferred before this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for providing opportunity of hearing afresh on merits to both the parties. The relevant portion of the order of remand contained in para 7 of the judgment of this Court delivered on 27th of July 2001 in the said writ petition is reproduced below :- "7. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of the Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside, and the Appeal No. 361/96, 363/96 and 364/96 are remanded to the School Tribunal, Aurangabad with the directions to hear the same afresh on merits by giving proper opportunity to both the parties of hearing in the matters. Considering the appeals are of the year 1996, the School Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 31st of December 2001." In spite of the aforesaid position, it seems that the petitioners have not approached the School Tribunal and have failed to avail the opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal has recorded finding in that respect in para 4 of its judgment as under :- 4 "4/- The respondents have not filed the W.S. In fact they did not accept the notices of this appeal and therefore, they were proceeded exparte, by the order dated 20-6-1997. Even when the appeal came before this Tribunal for hearing on 4-12-2001, the learned counsel for the appellant appeared but the learned counsel for the respondent was absent." 5. In view of aforesaid position, this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp7154.09