1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2633 OF 2010 Dattatraya s/o Ragho Deore, Age 34 years, Occ. Service, R/o Sakri, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Chairman, Rashtriya Vidya Vikas Sanstha, C/o Shivpranav Prathamik Vidya Mandir, Sakri, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. 2. The Head Master, Shivpranav Prathamik Vidya Mandir, Sakri, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner Shri A.S. Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Shri S.M. Godsay, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri Lalit Mahajan, Advocate holding for Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.3. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2 2. The writ petitioner, a Assistant Teacher claims having been appointed by order dated 26.5.1999 by the management- respondent effective from 1.6.1999. His grievance was, he was orally terminated by the management without following due procedure of law. The petitioner preferred a writ being Writ Petition No.3911/2004 before this Court. The management came with a stand that it was the petitioner who has sent resignation for the post of Assistant Teacher, which was disputed by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 3.4.2006, with a liberty to the petitioner to approach before appropriate forum by way of appeal. Having received the copy of such order of the High Court on 3.5.2006, the petitioner approached the learned Judge. In all such exercise, there is delay of virtually three years. The learned Judge did not approve of the sufficient grounds and causes being disclosed by the petitioner in making the application. Though I find that the writ petition was disposed on 3.4.2006 and the appeal is filed on 27.7.2006, the delay indeed is not deliberate or cannot be branded of three years. The time span in wandering of the petitioner attending litigations also should have been considered. That apart, the plight of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher could not be lost sight of. 3. The abridgement of submissions considered by the learned Judge in paragraph No.6 of the order, though indicate 3 that no document was produced by the petitioner, however, that by itself should not be a ground to reject his request. The petitioner was certainly not in slumber. He was agitating for his cause. The order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik is set aside. The delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. The learned Judge shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law. Writ Petition is allowed as above. Rule made absolute. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE