( 1 ) wp3281.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3281 OF 2009 Prashant s/o. Shivaji Shinde .. Petitioner Versus The Gram Vikas Shikshan Mandal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 14.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsels. 2. The petitioner was working as a Jr. Clerk on establishment of respondent No.1. He was allegedly appointed on 01.08.1996 and was terminated on 04.10.2004. He did not challenge the order of termination within reasonable period. He preferred Appeal No. JAL/1/2007 on 11.01.2007. There was delay of about 27 months in filing of the said appeal before ( 2 ) wp3281.09 the School Tribunal. He submitted application for condonation of delay. The School Tribunal dismissed his application and the appeal. The petitioner submitted before the School Tribunal that he had made several representation to respondent No.1. He alleged that respondent No.1’s management had assured him of granting reinstatement and as such he awaited for such a long time. The petitioner further alleged that he was informed that since his maternal uncle was residing in the same locality, he would be taken back in service. That was the reason put-forth by him seeking condonation of delay. 3. What appears from the record is that the petitioner did not name any particular member of the management who had assured him of the reinstatement nor any evidence was adduced to substantiate the allegation that he was assured of reinstatement and therefore was required to await decision of the management. There is no document on record to show that he made any written representation to the management. The allegations made by the petitioner are too vague. The reasons recorded by the School Tribunal are quite legal and ( 3 ) wp3281.09 proper. No case was made out to condone the long delay of about 27 months. Faced with this difficulty, Mr. Barlinge submitted that the petitioner had worked for a considerable period and should have been granted opportunity of hearing before the School Tribunal on the ground of equity. The delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity. I mean to say, the rigours of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, cannot be diluted on sympathetic consideration or the principles of equality, which will not be a substitute for the requirement of furnishing “sufficient reasons”. 4. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp3281.09