Bombay High Court
Tulsiram Dhansingh Bakle vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 16 June, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, M. G. Sewlikar
1 984-WP-1115-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1115 OF 2021
Tulshiram s/o. Dhansingh Bakle,
Age 38 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Dhangar Galli, Near Mahadeo Mandir,
Ward No. 1, Harsool, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary of Public
Health Department, G. T. Hospital
"B" Wing, 10th Floor Complex Building,
New Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Dean,
Government Dental College and Hospital,
Aurangabad. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Kachru A. Ingle, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. K. B. Jadhvar, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
...
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 16th JUNE, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of both the parties.
2. The petitioner had filed Original Application with
Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad. The petitioner sought to rely upon
2 984-WP-1115-21.odt
Government Resolution dated 11-03-2016 for stay to the appointment on
the post of Plumber. The father of petitioner was serving as Sweeper with
the respondent. The petitioner was claiming appointment on hereditary
basis. The Tribunal on merits observed that the petitioner is not entitled to
get the benefit of Government Resolution and dismissed the Original
Application and Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned AGP for respondents.
4. It is settled proposition of law that the original application
could not have been dismissed without condoning the delay. The Tribunal
has not assigned any reason for not condoning the delay. The Tribunal
ought to have considered the grounds raised by the petitioner for
condonation of delay. If the Tribunal would not have been satisfied about
the sufficient cause, then may have rejected the application for
condonation of delay. The Tribunal ought to have heard original
application on merit and passed the order only if the delay was condoned.
5. It appears that the present petitioner made representation
immediately, however, filed Original Application after making subsequent
representation and issuing three reminders.
6. The petitioner, it appears, is working as a labour and financially
weak. The petitioner has not gained anything by approaching the Tribunal
late. The representation was filed by the petitioner on 25-01-2017 even
3 984-WP-1115-21.odt
before retirement of his father. The father retired from service on
30-06-2017. The petitioner subsequently gave three reminders and,
thereafter, filed Original Application. It is settled law that liberal and
pragmatic approach is essential to be adopted by avoiding pedantic
approach while dealing with the application for condonation of delay.
When technical consideration and cause for substantial justice are pitted
against each other, the cause for substantial justice shall be sub-served.
7. In the light of above, the order dated 23 rd June, 2020 passed
by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous
Application No. 161 of 2020 in Original Application Stamp No. 473 of 2020
is quashed and set-aside. Miscellaneous Application No. 161 of 2020 is
allowed. The delay caused in filing Original Application Stamp No. 473 of
2020 is condoned. Original Application is restored to its original stage.
Rule, accordingly, made absolute. No costs.
( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
rrd
