SUDHAKAR GANPAT UMARGUNDAWAR Vs. LOKMANYA TILAK SMARAK MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur on an application for condonation of delay that was filed by the petitioner along with the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the said Act). It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher at the school run by the respondent no.1. His date of appointment was 28.09.1998. It is his further case that the respondent no.2 was appointed as an untrained teacher on 01.07.1997 and he acquired training qualification subsequently. According to the petitioner the respondent no. 1 promoted the respondent no.2 on the post of Head Master on 01.07.2004 by disregarding the claim of the petitioner. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid appeal under Section 9 of the said Act on 28.05.2014 seeking to challenge the order of promotion dated 01.07.2004. Along with the said appeal he moved a separate application for condonation of delay. In that application it was stated that the respondent no.2 had been working as in-charge Head Master and only after receiving information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that he got knowledge about his supersession. This application was opposed by the respondent nos. 1 and By the impugned order said application for condonation of delay has been rejected holding that the delay of almost nine years was not properly explained.

(3.) Shri P. N. Shende, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was challenging his supersession, there was no period of limitation prescribed under the provisions of Section 9(2) of the said Act for filing an appeal. He submitted that even if such application for condonation of delay was filed, the same was only by way of abandant precaution. He submitted that the School Tribunal ought to have entertained the appeal on merits and ought to have decided the same. In any event he submitted that the period of delay had been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner which explanation ought to have been accepted by the School Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be decided on merits.