IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VPH WRIT PETITION No.6605 OF 2008 Sunil Shashimohan Khot Petitioner Vs. Sanjay Ramchandra Veturkar 7 Ors. Respondents Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar, for the petitioner. Mr. Mihir Desai, for the respondent No.1. Mr. Sangramsingh Yadav, for the respondent No.2. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 21st, November 2008. P.C. . Rule, by consent of learned counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and final disposal. 2. An appeal has been filed before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 by the 1st respondent against his supersession to the post of head-master which took place on 1st June, 2003. The substantive relief which has been sought is the setting aside of the promotion and appointment of the petitioner - 2 - as head master. The appeal was filed on 1st September, 2006. For the purposes of the present proceedings it needs to be recorded that it is an undisputed position that the petitioner who was already serving as the Head of the D.Ed. College under the same Management was transferred on his request as the Head Master of a Secondary School. An application was filed by the 1st respondent for condonation of the delay in presenting the appeal. The application was allowed by the School Tribunal by the impugned order dated 19th July, 2008. 3. Section 9(2) of the M.E.P.S. Act prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days for filing an appeal against an order of dismissal, removal, termination of service or reduction in rank. Admittedly, no specific period of limitation is prescribed for challenging an order of supersession. It is a settled position in law that where no period of limitation has been prescribed, a challenge must be preferred within a reasonable period. This has been reiterated in a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court Secretary, Shirol Secretary, Shirol Secretary, Shirol Education Society, Wani Vs. Presiding Officer, School Education Society, Wani Vs. Presiding Officer, School Education Society, Wani Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad & Ors. 2000 II CLR 730. Tribunal, Aurangabad & Ors. 2000 II CLR 730. Tribunal, Aurangabad & Ors. 2000 II CLR 730. 4. Strictly speaking in as much as no specific - 3 - period of limitation is provided by Section 9(2) of the M.E.P.S. Act for challenging an order of supersession, no occasion arose for filing an application for condonation of delay. An application for condonation of delay presupposes that the statute provides for a specific period of limitation and there is a provision for condoning delay on sufficient cause being shown. At the hearing of these proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated before the Court that the application which was filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal was misconceived, since the question of delay would have to be considered on general principles by the Tribunal when the appeal comes up for hearing. In these circumstances, a prayer has been made before the Court for permission to withdraw the application (Exhibit "2") that was filed before the School Tribunal. There is no reason why the request that is made for permission to withdraw the application for condoning the delay should not be allowed. The application at Exhibit "2" is permitted to be withdrawn. 5. In view of the withdrawal of the application the impugned order dated 19th June, 2008 would not survive. However, it is clarified that the observations which are contained in the present order shall not preclude the - 4 - parties from urging all appropriate contentions before the Tribunal, including question as to whether the 1st respondent has approached the Tribunal after a delay of such a nature which disentitles him to the grant of any relief. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- [ Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]