Shri Vijay Shamrao Rangari vs Bahujan Shaikshanik Sanstha ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2404 Bom

                                        1                                  050221cao1173.17.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                    CIVIL APPLICATION [CAO] NO. 1173 OF 2017
                                        IN
                   MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 6129 OF 2017
                                        IN
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2013 (D)
                         VIJAY SHAMRAO RANGARI
                                 VERSUS
   BAHUJAN SHAIKSHANIK SANSTHA, THRU. ITS SECY., GADCHIROLI AND OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                           Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Mr. P. N. Shende, Advocate fro the applicant..

                                 CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2021.

1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for review of the order passed by this Court (Coram : R. Y. Ganoo, J.) dated 26.06.2013 in Writ Petition No. 779/2013.

2. Heard Mr. P. N. Shende, learned counsel for the applicant in extenso.

3. The applicant herein, being aggrieved by the actions of non-applicant nos.1 and 2, had approached the School Tribunal by filing appeal bearing No. STC/03/2010 at Chandrapur. Learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal found that the appointment of the applicant was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 11.10.2012 as not maintainable. The applicant being aggrieved by the said, approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2 050221cao1173.17.odt

779/2013. On 26.06.2013, the writ petition was dismissed holding that the Tribunal was right in recording a finding that the appeal was not maintainable. It was also observed by the Court that the petitioner (applicant) can challenge the action by filing appropriate proceeding.

4. According to Mr. Shende, learned counsel for the applicant, after this order was passed dismissing the writ petition filed by the applicant, the applicant approached to the Tribunal and filed an application for review of its judgment and order dated 11.10.2012. The learned counsel submits that the review application filed by the applicant was dismissed on 06.01.2015 by the learned Presiding Officer of School Tribunal.

5. Against this order, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, he approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5125 of 2016. He submits that when this writ petition was pending, the applicant filed an application for review of the order dated 26.06.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 779 of 2013. The review application was barred by limitation and therefore, the present application for condonation of delay was filed. Mr. Shende, learned counsel further submits that Writ Petition No. 5125 of 2016 was withdrawn by him on 24.03.2017. He submits that due to aforesaid facts, the delay has occurred in filing the review application, which be condoned.

6. In my view, once the applicant had filed Writ Petition No. 5125 of 2016 challenging the order of dismissal of review petition by the Presiding Officer of 3 050221cao1173.17.odt

School Tribunal, he ought to have got it decided on its own merits, but he chose to withdraw the said petition. Since, Writ Petition No. 5125/16 was withdrawn, the order passed by the School Tribunal, dismissing the application filed on behalf of the applicant for review has already attained finality.

7. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the application for reviewing the order dated 26.06.2013 be considered on its own merit, in my view, is not correct. The delay is huge i.e. 3 years and 234 days. No case is made out for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.

8. Consequently, the Misc. Civil Application St. No. 1173/2017 also stands rejected. No order as to costs.

                                              JUDGE
Diwale




                                                         Digitally signed
                                                         by Parag
                                             Parag       Diwale

                                             Diwale      Date:
                                                         2021.02.08
                                                         11:16:59 +0530