:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6624 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6624 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6624 OF 2008 The President / Secretary / Headmaster Suryakant Bogar Kannada Vidyalaya, Solapur ..Petitioner versus Siddhappa D. Karkal & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. Sakhare for the Petitioner. Mr. N. Shimpi for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 6TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 6TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 6TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the School Tribunal, Solapur, dated 5.8.2008 allowing the application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent No. 1. 3. The relevant facts are that the respondent No. 1 filed an Appeal before the School Tribunal on 3.8.2008 alleging oral termination on 5.7.2007. :2: According to the respondent No. 1 he was prevented from working w.e.f. 5.7.2007 after Writ Petition No. 558 of 2007 filed by the respondent No.1 was withdrawn. 4. According to the petitioner there was a delay of one year and seven months which has been condoned by the Tribunal without due application of mind. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 1’s services were terminated by an order dated 12.12.2005 which is received by the respondent on 19.12.2005 vide a postal acknowledgement at Exhibit ’C’ to the petition. Therefore, according to the petitioner the case made out by the respondent No. 1 that his services were orally terminated on 5.7.2007 is false and the delay could not have been condoned on that basis. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 however submits that the respondent No. 1 has never received the termination order dated 12.12.2005. According to the learned counsel the acknowledgement of 19.12.2005 at page 35 is an acknowledgement in respect of the letter dated 30.9.2005 issued by Primary Education Board, Solapur, in respect of the withdrawal of the approval of the respondent No.1. :3: 6. It appears from the Order of the Tribunal that the crucial fact whether the respondent No. 1 received the letter of termination dated 12.12.2005 vide acknowledgement dated 19.12.2005 as alleged by the petitioner has not been considered at all. The Tribunal has gone on the basis that the respondent No. 1 had filed a Writ Petition No. 558 of 2007 which was disposed of on 5.7.2007 and thereafter he approached the Tribunal within a period of two and half months for redressal. According to the Tribunal therefore there is no delay. It appears that the Order of the Tribunal is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record, in that, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence pertaining to the alleged receipt of termination order on 19.12.2005. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall decide the matter within three months from the date the parties first appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before it on 30.3.2009. 7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. :4: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)