SECRETARY Vs. CHINTAMANI BIRJAPRASAD DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 4-4-1998 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal No. BOM/1/1996. The impugned order directed the appellants to promote respondent No. 1 to the post of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 3-1-1996 with all the benefits of that post including salary and allowances.

(2.) THERE is a High School by name Shri Jamnadas Adukia Balika Vidyalaya at Kandivali (East) Mumbai-400 101. It is run by a Public Trust of which petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary and petitioner No. 2 is the Headmistress. Respondent No. 1 was appointed in the said School as a Peon in the year 1972. In the course of his service, he was promoted to the post of Laboratory Attendant. In 1984, respondent No. 1 improved his educational qualification by passing S. S. C. Examination and thereby became eligible for being promoted to the post of Clerk or Laboratory Assistant. Accordingly, he made several applications to the Management of the School requesting them to promote him to the said post but all his requests went unheeded. According to respondent No. 1, there was a vacancy in the post of a Clerk in the year 1985, but the Management told him that the said post was reserved for B. C. or O. B. C. candidate and thereafter one Sarosh Panchal was appointed to the said post. Again, in 1991, there was a vacancy in the post of Clerk, but that time also the claim of respondent No. 1 was ignored and respondent No. 2 came to be appointed as a Clerk. Respondent No. 1 thereafter made a representation to the Lokayukta, Maharashtra. But, according to respondent No. 1, he was advised to approach the School Tribunal. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 filed the above-mentioned appeal before the School Tribunal, Mumbai, on 3-1-1996. Since, there was a considerable delay in filing the appeal, respondent No. 1 also filed a separate application for condonation of delay.

(3.) THE petitioners, who were respondents in that appeal, filed their written-statement, contending that the appeal was not maintainable as there was inordinate delay of five years. The petitioners further contended that there was no justifiable ground for condoning the delay. The petitioners denied that respondent No. 1 was entitled to be appointed to the post of Clerk or alternatively to the post of Laboratory Assistant. It was pointed out that it will not be convenient to appoint respondent No. 1 as a Laboratory Assistant for the classes of 8th, 9th and 10th standards as the students of these classes are all adolescent girls.