1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8159 OF 2009 Rashtriya Charitable Trust } Rashtriya Adhyapak Vidyalaya } G.No. 165, Mitmita } R/o : Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad } Through its President & Secretary } Nitin S/o Suresh Patil } Age : 39 Years, Occ. Business, } R/o : Parwati 25, New Samarth Nagar } Aurangabad. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through Secretary of School } Education & Sport Department, } Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. } 2. The Regional Director } National Council for Teacher } Education (N.C.T.E.), } Western Regional Committee } Manas Bhavan, Shamla Hills,Bhopal } (M.P.). } 3. The Member Secretary } N.C.T.E., New Delhi } (A statutory body of Government } of India W.R.C.), New Delhi. } .... RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate holding for Mr. P.B.Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. S.S.Bora, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 21/04/210 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Mr. V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate holding for Mr. P.B.Patil, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State and Mr. S.S.Bora, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. 3. A short point which is involved for consideration in the present petition is the dismissal of the Appeal filed by the present petitioner under Section 18 of the National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993 ( For short, ‘ Teachers Education Act ’ ). The Appeal filed by the petitioner undisputedly was barred by limitation and 3 according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by an application for seeking condonation of delay, though a provision to that effect did exist in the statute. Mr. Sakolkar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that on account of the indisposition of the petitioner, the application remained to be filed and consequently appeal came to be dismissed. 4. Since the appeal has been dismissed only on the ground that it was barred by limitation, we are inclined to allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 9/11/2009 and remit the matter back to the appellate authority for decision afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit an application seeking condonation of delay. 5. We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 9/11/2009 and remit the matter back to the authority for decision afresh. The petitioner shall file an application seeking condonation of delay within four weeks from today. On such application being filed, the appellate authority shall examine the cause seeking condonation of delay and decide the matter, in accordance with law, within period of three months from today. The order passed on such application be communicated to the petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no 4 order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 8159.09 ( J )