Case Note & Summary
The petitioners were employees of Respondent No.2 Institution and worked at Respondent No.3 College until their termination on 17.04.2012, communicated on 21.04.2012. They initially approached the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos.4305/2012, 4307/2012, and 6672/2012, which were disposed of on 30.10.2012 with liberty to avail the alternate statutory remedy before the University and College Tribunal. The petitioners filed appeals before the Tribunal on 05.02.2013 along with applications for condonation of delay, claiming a delay of about 259 days. The Tribunal, by order dated 03.08.2015, rejected the condonation applications in Miscellaneous Application Nos.1/2013 to 07/2013. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court considered whether the Tribunal had erred in refusing to condone the delay. The Court noted that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion and found that the petitioners had not provided sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision was not perverse or arbitrary, and that the delay of 259 days was substantial and unexplained. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 68 - The petitioners, employees of a private college, were terminated on 17.04.2012. They initially filed writ petitions which were disposed of with liberty to approach the Tribunal. They filed appeals on 05.02.2013 with a delay of 259 days. The Tribunal rejected the condonation applications. The High Court held that the Tribunal's discretion was exercised judiciously and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The Court declined to interfere under Article 226. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the University and College Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the delay of 259 days in filing appeals against termination of service, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the order of the University and College Tribunal dated 03.08.2015 refusing to condone the delay.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation
- Discretion of Tribunal
- Interference under Article 226
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 10
Writ Petition No. 8538 of 2015 with Writ Petition Nos.8539/2015, 8540/2015, 8623/2015, 8630/2015, 8631/2015, 8632/2015
Shri R.D.Kadap h/f Shri Thombre S.S. for Petitioner; Smt.S.D.Shelke, Smt.V.A.Shinde, Shri U.H.Bhogle, Shri D.R.Korde for Respondent No.1/State; Shri Gore R V for Respondents 2 & 3
Sanjay Sadashiv Jadhav, Prakash Tulsiram Khalage, Prashant Indarrao Pawar, Pandurang Dhondiba Maske, Ayodhya Kisanrao Agarakar, Jyotiram Haribhau Jadhav, Ganesh Sadashiv Lomte
The Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad; Rashtriya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed; Lokmanya Tilak College, Wadwani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of the University and College Tribunal refusing to condone delay in filing appeals against termination of service.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 03.08.2015 and condonation of delay in filing appeals.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were terminated from service on 17.04.2012 and filed appeals before the Tribunal on 05.02.2013 with a delay of 259 days. The Tribunal rejected the condonation applications.
Previous Decisions
The petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court (W.P. Nos.4305/2012, 4307/2012, 6672/2012) which were disposed of on 30.10.2012 with liberty to approach the Tribunal.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the delay of 259 days in filing the appeals.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Tribunal's discretionary order.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the delay was due to pursuing remedies before the High Court and that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay.
The respondents contended that the delay was not sufficiently explained and the Tribunal rightly exercised its discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal's discretion in refusing to condone delay was judiciously exercised and not perverse; the High Court under Article 226 will not interfere with such discretionary orders unless they are arbitrary or illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners are said to have been terminated by the order dated 17.04.2012 which was communicated to them by the Institution on 21.04.2012.
By order dated 30.10.2012, this Court disposed of the petitions by observing that the Petitioners have an alternate statutory remedy of approaching the University and College Tribunal.
It was stated that the delay was of about 259 days.
Procedural History
The petitioners were terminated on 17.04.2012. They filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court which were disposed of on 30.10.2012 with liberty to approach the Tribunal. They filed appeals before the Tribunal on 05.02.2013 with condonation applications. The Tribunal rejected the applications on 03.08.2015. The petitioners then filed the present writ petitions on 25.08.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994: Section 68
