Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sayyad Rizwan Sayyad Kasam, was appointed as a Peon in 2011 at Maulana Azad College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Aurangabad, and was a permanent employee. He claimed that on 19.12.2019, the Principal (respondent No. 3) orally terminated him by stopping allotment of work and threatening him from entering the college. The petitioner made several representations, the last being on 20.10.2020, but the management did not respond. Consequently, on 2.11.2020, he filed an appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 before the College and University Tribunal, Aurangabad, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, by order dated 2.7.2021, rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner failed to explain the delay from 19.12.2019 to 20.10.2020. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The High Court examined the facts and found that the petitioner did not provide any explanation for the delay of about 10 months. The court noted that the petitioner's own case showed he made representations only after 10 months, indicating lack of diligence. The court held that the Tribunal's order was not perverse and the petitioner did not make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The petitioner, a permanent peon, claimed oral termination on 19.12.2019 but filed appeal on 2.11.2020 with delay of about 10 months. The Tribunal rejected the condonation application as the petitioner failed to explain the delay from 19.12.2019 to 20.10.2020. The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was not perverse and the petitioner did not make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 2-8)
B) Service Law - Oral Termination - Burden of Proof - The petitioner alleged oral termination but did not produce any documentary evidence. The court noted that the petitioner's own case showed he made representations only after 10 months, indicating lack of diligence. (Paras 3-6)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The High Court's power under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate. The court will not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal's order was found to be reasonable. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the College and University Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, and consequently dismissing the appeal.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Maharashtra Public Universities Act
- 2016
- Section 81
- Oral termination
- Service dispute
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 4
WRIT PETITION NO. 8824 OF 2021
Mr. Amol N. Kakade, Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, Mr. P.S. Dighe, Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi
Sayyad Rizwan Sayyad Kasam
The State of Maharashtra, President/Chairman Maulana Azad Education Trust, The Principal Maulana Azad College of Arts Science and Commerce, The Registrar Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the College and University Tribunal rejecting the application for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 2.7.2021 and to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed he was orally terminated on 19.12.2019 and filed an appeal on 2.11.2020 with a delay of about 10 months, which the Tribunal refused to condone.
Previous Decisions
The College and University Tribunal, Aurangabad, by order dated 2.7.2021 in Misc. Civil Application (Delay) No. 10/2020, rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay?
Whether the petitioner made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he made several representations and the delay was due to the management's inaction.
The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to explain the delay from 19.12.2019 to 20.10.2020.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Tribunal's order rejecting the condonation of delay was not perverse and the petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay of about 10 months. The High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, would not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the year 2011 in Maulana Azad College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Aurangabad.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was orally terminated on 19.12.2019 whereby respondent No. 3 had stopped allotment of any work and had threatened the petitioner from entering the college.
The petitioner filed appeal under section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 before the College and University Tribunal, Aurangabad along with the application for condonation of delay on 2.11.2020.
The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal was also dismissed.
The petitioner has not explained the delay from 19.12.2019 to 20.10.2020.
The order passed by the Tribunal is not perverse and the petitioner has not made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in 2011. He claimed oral termination on 19.12.2019. He made representations, last on 20.10.2020. On 2.11.2020, he filed an appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 along with a condonation application before the College and University Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal on 2.7.2021. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date, which was heard and dismissed on 4.1.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016: Section 81
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Constitution of India: Article 226
