1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1395/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3915/2009 (D) (Maharshi Walmiki Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Santha ..vs.. Ku. Rajashri Vishwanath Adikane and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- DECEMBER 03, 2009 Heard learned Advocate Shri Jachak for the applicants. For the reasons stated in the application, the order dated 07/11/2009 is recalled. Writ Petition No. 3915/2009 is restored back to file. The Misc. Civil Application is disposed of. Writ Petition. No.3915/2009 Heard learned counsel for petitioner on the merits of the writ petition. The contention is School Tribunal condoned delay by hearing the matter on same day on which it was fixed only for filing reply to 2 the application for condonation of delay. Though, the learned counsel for respondent employee was not present, he has been shown to have been heard and delay has been condoned. The learned counsel contends that the matter should have been fixed for hearing so as to give proper opportunity of stating the facts and as that has not been done, the order stands vitiated. Learned counsel points out that in earlier round, the writ petition challenging the judgment of School Tribunal was pending before this court and during its pendency, the respondent employee claimed termination with effect from 30/3/2009. He states that that termination was pointed out to this court by the respondent and relief was sought from this Court. This Court did not interfere and respondent was permitted to approach the School Tribunal with a direction to School Tribunal to decide the appeal, if filed, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal came to be filed along with application for condonation of delay on 13/7/2009. In this background, the learned counsel has invited my attention to the grounds no. II and III raised in the writ petition. It is his contention that in pre-determined or prejudiced way the School Tribunal 3 has condoned delay. I do not find it necessary to comment on the grounds as raised. The facts mentioned above clearly show that the School Tribunal was not in error in condoning the delay. The order passed by it shows consideration of all relevant facts and thereafter the delay has been condoned. If the petitioners in future finds any reasonable ground of any prejudice or bias, they can always move the competent authority in this respect. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.