:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9066 OF 2007 Sane Guruji Shikshan Sanstha ..Petitioner Vs. Smt. R.G. Shinge and anr. ..Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : : : March 12, 2008. March 12, 2008. March 12, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Bandiwadekar the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 10/8/2007 passed by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur thereby condoning the delay of 3 years 3 months and 13 days in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 (for short the Act). 3. Mr. Bandiwadekar submitted that the appellant- respondent no.1 did not make out good and :2: sufficient reasons to condone the inordinate delay of more than 3 years and 3 months and the School Tribunal did not appreciate the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Smt. Katiji [AIR 1987 SC 1353]. He also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Executive President, Pune Vidyarthi Griha, Pune and ors. vs. Bhaskar Bhagwant Yadav and ors. [2001 (2) Mh.L.J. 226]. 4. The respondent no.1 was initially appointed on 1/7/1981 as an Assistant Teacher by the petitioner, which is running a secondary school at Kurundwad. From 1/6/1990 she was promoted to the post of Headmistress and the said appointment was approved by the respondent no.2 on 25/6/1990. After she had completed a tenure of more than three years, by an order dated 20/7/1993 she was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher, consequent to the report submitted by the Enquiry Committee and undoubtedly this order was by way of punishment. The respondent no.1 submitted a representation on 20/7/1993 itself to the management as well as to the Deputy Director of Education. She received a reply from the respondent :3: no.2 on 21/8/1993 and 23/12/1993. She approached the District Collector on 8/8/1994 and intimated her decision to commence a hunger strike. She also approached the Government of Maharashtra. The Deputy Director of Education addressed her a letter on 16/7/1994 and by a subsequent letter dated 10/7/1995 the Education Officer (respondent no.2) advised her that she had a remedy to approach the School Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Act and accordingly such an appeal was filed on or about 3/12/1996 and along with the appeal registered as Appeal No. 247 of 1996, she also filed an application for condonation of delay, which has been allowed by the impugned order. 5. There is no doubt that the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 is under Section 9(1)(a) and as per subsection (2) of Section 9, the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of reduction in rank. Subsection (3) of Section 9 of the Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2), the Tribunal may entertain an appeal made to it after the expiry of said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that the :4: appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. In the instant case, as noted by the School Tribunal, the Education Officer had informed the respondent no.1 to approach the School Tribunal and she filed the appeal on or about 3/12/1996 i.e. after about 17 months. In the case of Bhaskar Bhagwant Yadav (Supra) this court did not agree with the School Tribunal in condoning the delay of about 3 years for the following reasons:- ".....The period, therefore, from 1-3-1990 to 12-4-1993 remains unexplained. It is true that while considering the question of sufficiency of the cause for condonation of delay, the Courts or tribunals must be liberal and have justice oriented approach but at the same time, it cannot be over-looked that upon expiry of limitation, the valuable right accrues in favour of the opposite party and that cannot be taken away on flimsy ground. The cause has to be sufficient which may unable the Tribunal to condone the delay. The appeal was filed almost after three years by :5: the first respondent without any sufficient cause and threfore, the delay did not merit condonation...." 6. The appeal filed in that case was under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act and order of supersession was challenged. Right of promotion was created in favour of the other teacher and the promotee-teacher had worked for more than 3 years in the higher post. In the instant case the reversion has been by way of punishment and after she had received the communication dated 10/7/1995 she ought to have filed the appeal before the School Tribunal expeditiously but has certainly waited for about 17 months. The Tribunal has found it appropriate to condone such a delay by the impugned order. The observations made by the Apex Court in Smt. Katiji’s case (Supra) have been relied upon and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed is either perverse or manifestly erroneous. A possible view has been taken by the School Tribunal in condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal and it was not a case where the delay on day to day basis was required to be :6: explained. The order of demotion which was passed by way of punishment itself did not indicate sufficient reasons and it was not known whether the respondent no.1 had appeared before the Committee or not, resulting into its report and consequently reversion order. Refusal to condone the delay in such case would result in miscarriage of justice and, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order under the supervisory powers of this court. 7. Hence, the petition is rejected. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)