1 lpa-211-11.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.211 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1774 OF 2010 Suneeta Laxman Kaledhonker .... Appellant vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. .... Respondents Mr. A.M. Joshi for the Appellant. Mr. P.G. Sawant for respondents. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : September 13, 2011 P.C.: The relevant facts are that the Appellant/Petitioner was in service of an Ashram school for a period of one year. Her services were terminated by order dated 1 July 1998. Surprisingly, instead of approaching the School Tribunal or the Civil Court or the Authorities of the Social Welfare Department which regulate the Ashram schools and recognize them, she approached the Lokayukta. The application before the Lokayukta was made on 7 July 1998. The Lokayukta, by order dated 22 April 1999 dismissed the complaint holding that the appointment of the Appellant/petitioner was against a post reserved for backward class candidate and that she was appointed for a period 2 lpa-211-11.sxw of one year only because a backward class candidate was not available. The Appellant/petitioner instead of challenging that order which rejected her claim and held the termination of her services to be valid filed an Appeal before the School Tribunal. That Appeal was filed on 21 May 1999. There was delay in filing that Appeal. We have been informed that an application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal was made. But before that application could be decided and the delay condoned, the Appellant withdrew the Appeal on 16 December 1999. On 7 April 2000 a Civil Suit was filed challenging the termination. The Civil Court, by order dated 31 October 2002, held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Civil suit in so far as the order terminating the services of the Appellant is concerned. According to the Appellant, she received the certified copy of the order of the Civil Court on 16 November 2002. On 11 December 2002 an Appeal was again filed before the School Tribunal challenging the order terminating her services dated 1 July 1998. An application for condonation of delay was filed. Now it is obvious that even if it is assumed that the period spent by the Appellant in prosecuting the Civil Suit, namely the period from 7 April 2000 to 31 October 2002 is to be accepted as being spent in prosecuting the civil Suit bonafide, the Appellant had to explain firstly as to why and how she approached 3 lpa-211-11.sxw the Lokayukta which, according to herself, was a wrong forum. Then she had to explain the period from 1 July 1998 to 21 May 1999. The order in the Civil Suit was made on 31 October 2002. According to the Appellant, she received the copy on 16 November 2002. Therefore, she had to explain the period from 16 November 2002 to 11 December 2002. In the name of explanation in the application of the Appellant, all that the Appellant stated was that she was not negligent in prosecuting her case. Paragraph 2 of the application is the only paragraph which contains the application which reads as under : “2) The Appellant most respectfully states and submits that she has filed her appeal today. There is a delay in filing the present appeal. Though actually the delay seems to be of 4 years, 5 months and 19 days, the delay deserves to be condoned. During the period of delay, the Appellant was not negligent about her case. On the contrary maximum period of delay seems due to the pendency of the appeals. Initially she had filed her representation to the Lokayukta and Dy. Lokayukta of Maharashtra State and waited for the decision. Meanwhile as per the guidance she had filed her many representations to the Social Welfare Department. When the Appellant came to know that there are no hopes to get justice from the Department soon after that she had filed her first appeal no.63/99 before the Hon’ble School Tribunal. But after some time. The Appellant came to know that School Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals of the employees of the Ashram School. There was no any other way before the appellant except to the Appeal already filed before the Hon’ble 4 lpa-211-11.sxw School Tribunal. As per the directions the Appellant then filed her Special Civil Suit No.9/2000 before the Hon’ble Civil Judge Sr. Dn., Islampur. But unfortunately after long time the Hon’ble Court has passed the order on Exh. No. 41 and directed to file an appeal before the Hon’ble School Tribunal for reinstatement and back wages. Meanwhile Hon’ble Full Bench of the Mumbai High Court declared that the School Tribunals have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeals of the employees working in Ashram Schools conducting secondary and Higher secondary classes in the School.” In this paragraph, one does not find any explanation why the Appellant approached Lokayukta. There is no statement that she was prosecuting the proceeding before the Lokayukta bonafide and diligently and in good faith. There is no explanation whatsoever for the period after the civil suit was dismissed and she received copy on 16 November 2002 and when the Appeal was filed on 11 December 2002. The learned Single Judge, in this situation, has held that the Appellant has not been able to show any sufficient cause. 2 The learned counsel for the Appellant relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353, where the Supreme Court has held that the power of the Court of condoning the delay is to be liberally exercised for advancing justice. It is true that the power 5 lpa-211-11.sxw of the Court of condonation of delay is to be liberally exercised in order to advance justice, but while exercising that power the Court has to take care that liberal exercise of the power of condonation of delay does not result in causing prejudice to the interest of other side. The Appellant, as observed by the Lokayukta was in service for a period of one year was appointed against a seat reserved for backward class candidate because backward class candidate was not available. Her services were terminated in the month of July 1998. There is no information placed by the Appellant on record to show whether any person was appointed in the post vacated by her. In our opinion, that information was necessary because grant of any relief to the Appellant would result in causing prejudice to the interest of the person who might have been appointed in her place as also it will result in causing prejudice to the management. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal rightly declined to condone the delay and the learned Single Judge rightly held that the application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Appellant in a most casual manner. We see no reason to interfere. The Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D. K. DESHMUKH,J.)