EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT Vs. BHASKAR BHAGWANT YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH in the title of the writ petition, the petitioners have invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset stated that in the light of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, the petitioners are confining this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Division, Pune on 17-12-1997 whereby the said Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the respondent No. 1 herein against the petitioners challenging his supersession.

(3.) THE facts may be briefly stated. The first respondent herein filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, Pune on 21st July, 1993 challenging the appointment of third petitioner herein on the post of Headmaster by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The third petitioner herein was appointed as Headmaster on 1st February, 1990 and the said order was under challenge in the appeal. Since the appeal was barred by time, the respondent No. 1 herein made an application before the School Tribunal for condonation of delay. It was inter alia averred that cause of action arose on 1-2-1990 viz. date of his supersession by appointment of third petitioner herein as Headmaster. From that date, he has been trying to get his grievance redressed from the management and educational authorities. Though he relentlessly pursued the matter but since he did not get justice from the concerned authorities, he was compelled to file the appeal. The application for condonation of delay was contested by the third petitioner herein as well as the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein by filing separate replies. It was inter alia submitted in the reply that for the first time, the first respondent herein wrote a letter on 12-4-1993 raising his grievance about the appointment of the third petitioner as Headmaster and before that date, the appointment of the third petitioner as Headmaster was not challenged nor any representation was made. The petitioners, therefore, set up the plea that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay.