1 23 wp.747.09.sxw ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 747 OF 2009 B.P. Kumawat. ... PETITIONER Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS -------- Mr. Ashutosh Gole for Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for Respondent No. 1. Mr. S.P. Thorate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. -------- CORAM : D.D. SINHA, & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 03 rd March, 2010. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned AGP for Respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1 The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Primary Teacher in Zilla Parishad School, Thane on 14.09.1974. The Petitioner resigned from the said post on 28.06.1991. The Petitioner thereafter, was appointed as Block Education Officer on 29.06.1991 and was terminated from the said post 2 23 wp.747.09.sxw vide order dated 05.09.1995. It is contended that in view of the Government Resolution dated 25 th May, 1955, the Petitioner submitted representation to the Competent Authority to reinstate the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the Zilla Parishad School, Thane. However, the Competent Authority rejected the representation of the Petitioner on the ground that the case of the Petitioner was not covered by the said Government Resolution dated 25 th May, 1955. Hence the present Writ Petition. 2 Considered the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the respective parties and perused the Government Resolution dated 25 th May, 1955. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner had resigned from the post of Assistant Teacher way-back in the year 1991. Though it is the case of the Petitioner that the said resignation was not voluntary and the Petitioner was forced to resign. However, it is difficult to appreciate this contention at such a belated stage when almost a period of decade has been elapsed. We also cannot turn the nelson’s eye to the fact that the Petitioner after resigning from the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1991 had taken up another job of Block Educational Officer and worked on that post till the date he was terminated in the year 1995. If the Petitioner really had any grievance in respect of his resignation, in that event, he could have approached the Competent Authority or the Court on earlier occasion. The Petition therefore suffers from delay and 3 23 wp.747.09.sxw latches. 3 Even otherwise, for want of adequate evidence, it is also difficult for us to agree with the contention that the Petitioner was forced to resign from the post and in absence thereof, the Petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 25 th May, 1955. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Petition suffers from lack of merits and the same is rejected accordingly. [ D.D. SINHA, J ] [ A.A. SAYED, J ]