1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9369 OF 2009 The Chairman, Suryakant Shikshan Prasarak Mangal. ..Petitioner. Vs. Shri. Sidhappa D. Karkal and ors. ..Respondents . Mr. A.M.Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Sakhare for the Respondent No.2. CORAM :R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER,2009 PC: 1 This is a petition filed by the management impugning an order dated 1.7.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur below Exh.25 in Misc. Application No.61/2007 which was application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Case of the teacher who had filed appeal is that he was orally terminated on 5.7.2007. The Management however, has taken the contention that 2 the delay should not be condoned because actual termination was effected by letter dated 12.12.2005 which was received by the teacher under an postal acknowledgment dated 19.12.2005. The case of the teacher however, was that he was not received any termination order and he was not aware of his termination till 5.7.2007. As regards the acknowledgment dated 19.12.2005 teacher stated that the said acknowledgment pertained to letter dated 12.12.2005 which did not terminate his services and was sent by the Administrative Officer of the said institution. He produced that letter on record. In this fact situation, the tribunal has concluded that the management has not proved the service of the termination letter. In this regard, tribunal has also relied upon the fact that outward register showing the dispatch of two letters dated 12.12.2005 were not produced by the management. 2 It is next contended that the impugned order was passed in July, 2005 whereas the 3 respondent No.4 management was added as party for the first time subsequently in August,2005. However, even prior to the management being added as party, school was already party as respondent No.2 and the appeal discloses that the notice was to be served on the Chairman. In my view, this will not cause any prejudice to the management which was fully aware of the proceeding. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the petition and the same is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)