1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.840 OF 2009 Varsha V. Kamble ....Petitioner V/s. G.R.P. Sabnis Vidya Mandir & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.M.L. Patil for the Petitioner. Mrs.Anita A. Agarwal for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 8TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. The application which is rejected by the impugned order was for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 before the School Tribunal. This is not a case of a mere delay. The delay and latches on the part of the Petitioner has an effect on the rights of a third party. The third party has not even been imleaded either before the School Tribunal or in this Writ Petition. 2. The appeal under Section 9 of the said Act is against an order dated 27.4.2007 terminating the Petitioner’s services. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 27.5.2007. The appeal was ultimately filed on 24.4.2008. What happened in the meantime is important. 3. The post that was occupied by the Petitioner on a temporary basis, was converted into a full time post. On 28.6.2007, the Respondent issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling the said post. It is 2 important to note that the Petitioner participated in this process. She was not selected. One Ms.Bidwai was appointed to the said post with effect from 20.7.2007. She has not been impleaded in the appeal or in this Writ Petition. She has been working in the said post since then. It is also important to note that this selection process has not been challenged at any stage by the Petitioner. Nor has the Petitioner challenged the appointment of the said Ms.Bidwai pursuant thereto. 4. The Petitioner thereafter entered into correspondence with the authorities. It is important to note that the grievance raised in this correspondence was not qua the termination dated 27.4.2007. It pertains to the Petitioner not being selected pursuant to the process for filling the post commencing with the advertisement dated 28.6.2007. The correspondence is in Marathi. Both the counsel agree however that this is the effect of the correspondence. 5. Pursuant to the representation of the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 called for the report from the Education Officer. The Education Officer by his report dated 26.11.2007 stated that the post was reserved for a handicapped person. The said Ms.Bidwai was eligible for appointment to the said post, whereas the Petitioner was not. 6. In these circumstances, it would be unjust to condone the delay as on account of the delay and latches, third party rights have been created. The third party viz. Ms.Bidwai has altered her position to her detriment. It cannot therefore be said that the exercise of discretion by the School Tribunal was perverse or unreasonable. 7. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.