Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sudhakar Ganpat Umargundawar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 28.09.1998 at a school run by respondent no.1, Lokmanya Tilak Smarak Mandal. Respondent no.2, Santosh Sadashivrao Joshi, was appointed as an untrained teacher on 01.07.1997 and later acquired training. On 01.07.2004, respondent no.1 promoted respondent no.2 to the post of Head Master, allegedly disregarding the petitioner's claim. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 on 28.05.2014, challenging the promotion order. Along with the appeal, he filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that he only learned about his supersession after receiving information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The School Tribunal rejected the condonation application, holding that the delay of almost nine years was not properly explained. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court noted that Section 9(2) of the MEPS Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing an appeal. Therefore, the School Tribunal ought to have entertained the appeal on merits. The filing of a condonation application was by way of abundant precaution and did not waive the petitioner's right to argue that no limitation applies. Even if limitation were applicable, the explanation for the delay was satisfactory. The impugned order was set aside, and the School Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal on merits within six months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Limitation - Appeal under Section 9 of MEPS Act, 1977 - No period of limitation prescribed - The School Tribunal ought to have entertained the appeal on merits as there is no limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 9(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The petitioner's filing of a condonation application was by way of abundant precaution and did not preclude him from arguing that no limitation applies. (Paras 2-5)
B) Service Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient cause - Delay of nine years explained by lack of knowledge until RTI information - The petitioner explained that he only came to know about his supersession after receiving information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The School Tribunal's rejection of the condonation application was set aside as the explanation was satisfactory and the appeal deserves to be decided on merits. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay when the appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 has no prescribed period of limitation, and whether the delay was sufficiently explained.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur is set aside. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The School Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on its own merits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- No limitation period for appeal under Section 9(2) of MEPS Act
- 1977
- Condonation of delay application by abundant precaution does not waive right to argue no limitation
- Delay of nine years explained by lack of knowledge until RTI information
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 110
Writ Petition No. 2166 of 2015
Shri P. N. Shende for petitioner, Shri D. L. Dharmadhikari for respondents
Sudhakar Ganpat Umargundawar
Lokmanya Tilak Smarak Mandal, Santosh Sadashivrao Joshi, The Education Officer (Pri.) Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned order and direction to the School Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's appeal against his supersession in promotion was delayed by nine years; the School Tribunal rejected the condonation application.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay of almost nine years was not properly explained.
Issues
Whether the School Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay when the appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 has no prescribed period of limitation?
Whether the delay of nine years was sufficiently explained by the petitioner?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 9(2) of the MEPS Act for filing an appeal, and the condonation application was filed by way of abundant precaution. The delay was explained by the fact that he only came to know about his supersession after receiving information under the RTI Act.
Respondents supported the impugned order, submitting that the petitioner having filed a condonation application, the explanation was not satisfactory and the Tribunal rightly rejected it.
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 does not prescribe any period of limitation. Therefore, the School Tribunal ought to have entertained the appeal on merits. The filing of a condonation application by way of abundant precaution does not waive the right to argue that no limitation applies. Even if limitation were applicable, the explanation for the delay was satisfactory.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
In the light of the fact that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 9(2) of the said Act, the School Tribunal ought to have entertained the appeal on merits and ought to have decided the same.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 on 28.05.2014 challenging the promotion order dated 01.07.2004. Along with the appeal, he filed an application for condonation of delay. The School Tribunal rejected the condonation application. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 9, Section 9(2)
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
