1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.258/2007 In Writ Petition No.2145/2006 (Decided) [Ku. Kalpana d/o Deorao Lenze .vrs. Gurudeo Krishnashram Dharmik and three others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Prashant Shende, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. K.S. Dhote, AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ DATED : MARCH 27, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By filing Writ Petition No.3020/1996 the appellant challenged the cancellation of her approval by respondent no.3 – Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia. According to the appellant, during the pendency of the said writ petition, there was oral termination of her service with effect from 24.6.1997. By order dated 17.3.1998 Writ Petition No.3020/1996 was decided and respondent no.4 2 -Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur was directed to take fresh decision. The Deputy Director of Education took fresh decision by his order dated 20.9.1998 maintaining the cancellation of approval of the appellant. 3. It is contended by the appellant that she filed review application before the Deputy Director of Education. She even approached the Education Minister, who directed the Deputy Director of Education to decide the review application. However, the Deputy Director of Education did not decide the review application and the same is still pending. In the meanwhile, on 2.10.2001 the appellant challenged her termination by preferring appeal before the School Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay of 4 years, 2 months and 10 days in filing the appeal on the ground that she was waiting for the order of the review application by the Deputy Director of Education. The said reason did not weigh with the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay by its order dated 6.12.2005. The appellant challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.2145/2006. By order dated 3 11.1.2007 the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and confirmed the order of the School Tribunal. The present letters patent appeal is directed against the said order of the learned Single Judge. 4. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the School Tribunal as well as the order of the learned Single Judge. They have considered the grounds putforth by the appellant in details and found that the reason putforth by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing appeal is not at all sufficient. We see no reason to defer from this finding arrived at by the School Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE GULANDE