(1) WP. 3462.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3462 OF 2010 Smt Sulochana Govindrao Panchavre, Age : 33 years, Occu.: Service, R/o C/o Shivraj Niture at New Abadi, Nagure Mangal Karyalaya, Tq. Udgir and Dist. Latur .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Uday Mahila Bahudhesiya, Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dist.: Latur, Through, it's Secretary 2. Smt. Laxmibai Primary Vidya Mandir, Tq. Udgir, Dist.: Latur, Through it's Headmaster 3. The Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Tq. and Dist. Latur .. Respondents Mr. K.T. Shirurkar, Advocate h/f. Mr. Sanjay Kolhare, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. (2) WP. 3462.2010 2. By this Petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 6.3.2010 rendered by learned Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, Latur in Misc. Application no.12 of 2009. By that order, the petitioner's application for condonation of delay was rejected. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and allegedly was working in the school run by the respondent no.1 and 2. She was allegedly restrained from signing the muster roll w.e.f. 15.6.2007. She thereafter filed Writ Petition no.7234 of 2007 seeking directions from this Court for payment of her salary as well as direction to allow her to sign the muster roll. According to the petitioner, she was in service since 12.11.2002 till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. The respondents 1 and 2 however, asserted that the petitioner was not in service and that her services were not approved by the Education Officer. A Division Bench of this Court held that there were disputed question of fact involved in the Petition. The Division Bench further observed that the (3) WP. 3462.2010 petitioner had got alternate remedy which she may seek. Thus, by order dated 25.2.2009, Writ Petition no.7234 of 2007 was simultaneously rejected. Taking cue from the observations of this Court, the petitioner preferred appeal before the School Tribunal which was delayed. She filed application for condonation of delay. That application (Misc. Application no.12 of 2009) has been rejected vide the impugned order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner alleged that she was not allowed to sign the muster roll from 15.6.2007. It appears that she filed Writ Petition 7234 of 2007 in this Court on 13.8.2007. That Writ Petition was dismissed on 25.2.2009 with observation that alternate remedy was available to her. She filed appeal before the School Tribunal on 24.3.2009 i.e. within a period of 30 days after the dismissal of the Writ Petition by this Court. It is true, no doubt, that the appeal was filed before the School Tribunal (4) WP. 3462.2010 after one year eight months and eleven days if the period of limitation is to be computed of the date of alleged illegal termination of the petitioner. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal was apparently impressed by the contention that such a long period could not be condoned. 5. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 would submit that there was no justification for such excessive delay caused by the petitioner in filing of the appeal. He seeks to rely on certain observations in "Kamalbai Narasaiyya Shrimal and anr. V. Ganpat Vithalrao Gavare 2007(2) ALL MR 608". In the given case, it has been observed that delay in filing of the appeal ought to be satisfactorily explained and merely because there was no intentional delay, that itself cannot be a ground for the purpose of the condonation of the delay. This authority has no application to the fact situation obtained in the present case. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal was required to consider whether the petitioner gave proper explanation regarding the delay. The learned (5) WP. 3462.2010 Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal observed that the copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 7234 of 2007 was not placed on record. It is observed : "However, the pleading of the applicant reveals that the said writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the applicant to resolve the alternative remedy before the appropriate authority. Therefore the applicant has filed appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Advocate Shri Rudrawar for the respondents argued that said writ petition is disposed of. Undisputedly writ petition is disposed on 26.2.2009. According to the applicant, cause of action arose for filing of this appeal, on the disposal of the writ petition. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the writ petition is disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court." . Perusal of the above observations would show that the parties did not place correct fact situation before the Tribunal. There was no simple disposal of the Writ Petition as was submitted by the counsel for the respondent, nor it could be stated that the cause of action for filing of the appeal arose after (6) WP. 3462.2010 disposal of the Writ Petition. Both the statements were incorrect. The pendency of the Writ Petition was one of the reason for delay. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the time spent by the petitioner in this Court could be condoned under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner was not to gain any advantage by filing Writ Petition and unnecessarily spent the time in this Court. She laboured under wrong impression that the directions could be sought by seeking a writ of mandamus. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable in view of the disputed questions of fact and the proper remedy of the petitioner was to approach the proper forum by seeking alternate remedy. In fact, that was done by the petitioner by filing appeal before the School Tribunal. Considering the nibs in attending the Court, liberal view should have been taken by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal. The impugned order shows that the Tribunal has taken rigid view and erroneously dismissed the delay condonation application. The impugned order further (7) WP. 3462.2010 reveals that the approach of the Tribunal is not pragmatic, proper and legal. Needless to say the impugned order is un-sustainable. in the eye of law. 6. In the result, Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application be deemed as allowed and delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal expeditiously and decide the same on merits. No costs. Rule made absolute accordingly. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp