MARIA Z CONCESCIO Vs. PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging legality of order dated May 14, 1986, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. The facts which gave rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School run by the respondent with effect from June 6, 1983. The appointment of the petitioner was as a probationary. The services of the petitioner terminated on April 28, 1985. The petitioner approached the Education Inspector on October 7, 1985 complaining against the termination. The Education Inspector advised the petitioner to file an appeal before the School Tribunal. The petitioner thereupon preferred appeal before the School Tribunal on October 11, 1985.

(2.) AS the appeal was preferred beyond the period of 30 days from the date of termination, the petitioner filed application for condonation of delay. The petitioner claimed that she did not receive proper advice to file appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. The petitioner also claimed that taking into consideration of the fact that she was working as Assistant Teacher, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable as the respondent's College is a minority institution. The claim made by the petitioner was turned down by the Presiding Officer by the impugned order. On merits, the Presiding Officer held that the petitioner had failed to establish sufficient cause for not filing appeal during the period of limitation.

(3.) SHRI Vashi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Presiding Officer was in error in not condoning the delay in the facts and circumstances of the case. In our judgment, the submission is correct and deserves acceptance. The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher and her mother was sick at the time when the order of termination was passed. The petitioner was required to attend to her mother and that delayed the filing of the appeal. In our judgment, taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner was as Assistant Teacher, the Presiding Officer should have exercised the jurisdiction to condone the delay by taking lenient view. It is advisable that the party should have a feeling that the grievance is considered and not thrown out on technicalities. In these circumstances, in our judgment, it is necessary to set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer and remit the proceeding back to the School Tribunal for deciding the appeal on merits.