1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1443 OF 2009 Walmik s/o. Arjun Mali, Age 33 yrs., Occu. Assistant Teacher, R/o. At Post Pilkhod, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. Shri. Chindha Krishna Mali, President Dnyanjyoti Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, At Yeshwant Nagar, Moglai, Tq. and Dist. Dhule. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule. 3. Shri. K.C. Mali, Head Master, Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mugghan, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. ....Respondents. Shri. Sanjay Kolhare, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent No. 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 6th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is preferred by the employee, challenging the 2 judgment and order dated 14th of November 2008, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik, dismissing an application for condonation of delay, caused in filing an appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 11th February 2010. Shri. Sapkal, the learned counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 whereas Shri. T.S. Lodhe, the learned A.G.P. appears for respondent No. 2. The learned counsels for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally by consent of parties. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal No. MISC./DHL/11/2008 under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions and Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.E.P.S. Act") before the School Tribunal, Nasik, challenging his termination from service as an Assistant Teacher. Along with this appeal, the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay, caused in filing an appeal. According to the petitioner, on 28.1.2008 he came to know for the first time, that he was terminated from services and hence, he filed an appeal on 6.8.2008 before the School Tribunal, challenging his termination. According to him, there was delay of 5 months and 6 days, which was sought to be condoned by filing an application for condonation of delay. It was alleged in the application for condonation 3 of delay that the petitioner, for the first time on 28.1.2008, came to know that he was terminated from service. Another ground was stated that he had instituted criminal proceedings No. 285 on 18.4.2007 for illegal demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the respondent/management, therefore, the delay was caused in filing the appeal. The third ground was stated that he was continuously engaged in correspondence with the Education Department and the institution, as a result of which delay was caused. It was next ground stated that as a result of unlawful demand on the part of respondent/management, the petitioner was not in financial and mental condition to file the appeal and he was under the treatment of doctors. Thus, all these were the grounds, that are stated in the application for condonation of delay. 4. Upon notice being issued, the management appeared and filed a reply, stating that the services of the petitioner were terminated by an order dated 28.6.2006 with effect from 30.7.2006. Thus, the notice of termination dated 30.6.2006 as well as the discharge letter dated 30.7.2006 were signed by the petitioner on the very date, acknowledging the receipt of it. According to the management, the petitioner was well aware of the termination and the reasons put forth for seeking condonation of delay are false and not substantiated by any reasons placed on record. It was urged that the delay is of about 2 years in filing an appeal and no sufficient case is made out in condonation of delay. 4 5. The School Tribunal by its order dated 14th of November 2008 rejected the application for condonation of delay. While rejecting the application, a finding is recorded that there is absolutely no explanation for delay caused in filing an appeal. Medical ground put forth has also been considered and it was held that the petitioner had issued notice on 24.6.2008 to the respondent institute through advocate and was able to do his daily routein work and hence, the certificate produced does not help him for condonation of delay. Apart from, the fact is that the certificate does not disclose any mental shock or depression to the petitioner. It was further held that the petitioner has failed to produce even a single document to substantiate his plea, that he was pursuing remedy before the Education Officer as well as before the institution from 28.1.2008 to 24.6.2008. It was further held that the petitioner has failed to produce on record muster roll to show that he was actually working on the post. It was further held that the order of termination as well as discharge letter bear the signature of petitioner and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of it. According to the Tribunal, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 31.8.2006. However, there was total negligence on the part of petitioner in approaching the Tribunal. For all these reasons, the Tribunal found that there was no sufficient case made out by the petitioner for condonation of delay. 6. Shri. Sanjay Kolhare, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that he was not provided an opportunity to dispute 5 the signatures on order of termination dated 30.7.2006 and also on discharge letter dated 30.7.2006. He further submits that the petitioner had not signed the order of termination and the discharge letter and the matter was required to be sent to the hand writing expert to find out whether it bears the signature of the petitioner on any acknowledgment of the same. He further submits that he was engaged in correspondence and was under the mental stress because of the attitude of the management. He further urged that he had initiated the criminal proceedings against the management and for all these reasons, the delay was caused. According to him, the sufficient case was made out and the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the reasons put forth by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered on 18th of December 2007 in Writ Petition No. 3441/2007 in which the delay of three and half years was condoned in filing an appeal before the School Tribunal. 7. Shri. Sapkal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ management has invited my attention to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. My attention was invited specifically to para 5 of the application, in which the petitioner has stated that he has instituted a criminal proceedings on 18.4.2007 and therefore, his services were terminated. According to him, at least on 18.4.2007 he was aware that his services were terminated and therefore, the story put forth by him that on 28.1.2008, for the first time, he came to 6 know about his termination from service, is absolutely false. He supports the findings recorded by the School Tribunal while rejecting the application for condonation of delay. He submits that there was more than 2 years delay caused in filing an appeal, which was not explained and the Tribunal has found each of the ground, specified for seeking condonation of delay, tobe false. 8. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the petitioner and respondents, I have gone through the application for condonation of delay, reply filed to it and the documents produced on record. The question, whether the sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay, depends upon the facts of each case. The Tribunal has found that the reasons put forth by the petitioner, for seeking condonation of delay, are false. Even if it is accepted for a moment that the question, whether petitioner received order of termination on 30.6.2006 and the order of discharge on 30.7.2006, would be a matter of evidence to be considered on merits, still as rightly pointed out by Shri. Sapkal that the petitioner was atleast aware on 18.4.2007 that his services were terminated, prior to that date as stated in para 5 of the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of termination from service prior to 18.4.2007. The basic theory put forth by the petitioner that on 28.1.2008 for the first time he came to know that his services were terminated, is apparently false. In view of this, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was 7 thereafter engaged in correspondence with Education Department and institute or not, is of no relevance. Apart from this, the Tribunal has recorded a findings on facts, after taking into consideration each ground put forth by the petitioner, for seeking condonation of delay. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence on record to arrive at a finding, as to whether sufficient cause is made out or not. The Trial Court has held that no sufficient case is made out and the discretion exercised by the Trial Court cannot be interfered with, as it is not found to be perverse or contrary to the law laid down by this Court or by the Apex Court. The judgment of the learned Single Judge relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, delivered in Writ Petition No. 3441 of 2007, Sandeep s/o. Hiralal Netke Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, is therefore, of no help to the petitioner for deciding whether the sufficient cause is made out. No straight-jacket formula can be applied, it always depends upon the evidence available on record. In view of this, no fault can be found with the order passed by the School Tribunal. 9. In the result, there is no substance in the present petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp1443.09