9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordance with law. The High Court felt that if an appeal is preferred against an order of supersession before the School Tribunal Under Section 9(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the MEPS Act'), the provisions of limitation do not apply to such appeals and accordingly remanded the matter before the School Tribunal. 3. The Appellant being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this appeal. 4. The facts of the case are as follows: 4.1. On August 16, 1996 the Appellant was appointed as the Headmaster of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vidhyalaya run by Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Then Respondent No. 1 was acting as the in-charge Headmaster of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.3. The School Tribunal duly considered the matter on merits and noticed that Respondent No. 1 himself presided over the meeting of the Managing Committee and approved the appointment of the present Appellant as Headmaster of the said School. Admittedly, the Appellant was working since then and the said fact was known to the Respondent No. 1. Admittedly, he did not apply before the appropriate authority for appropriate remedy, save and except he filed representations addressed to R/M. In these circumstances, the School Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the application. 5. Being aggrieved, a writ petition was filed by Respondent No. 1 before the High Court and the High Court remanded the matter to the School Tribunal, hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuted Under Section 8:] Provided that, no such appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in any case where the matter has already been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction or is pending before such Court, on the appointed date or where the order of dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank was passed by the Management at any time before the 1st July, 1976. (2) Such appeal shall be made by the employee to the Tribunal, within thirty days from the date of receipt by him of the order of dismissal, removal otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank, as the case may be. Provided that, where such order was made before the appointed date, such appeal may be made within sixty days from the said date. (3) No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with the matter of similar nature held that where even no limitation has been prescribed, the petition must be filed within a reasonable time. In our considered opinion, the period of 9 years and 11 months, is nothing but an inordinate delay to pursue the remedy of a person and without submitting any cogent reason therefor. The court has no power to condone the same in such case. (See: Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory 2012 (8) SCC 524, State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty 2011 (3) SCC 436 and K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh 1986 (4) SCC 531. In these cases, it has been held that the application should be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay. Furthermore, it is to be noted that appointment of the Appellant was within the knowledge of Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
