Satchidananda Chintamani Behera vs The Vice Chancellor, Sant Gadge ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7114 Bom

                                                    1                      wp1268.21.odt

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

                        WRIT PETITION NO.1268/2021

      Satchidananda Chintamani Behera,
      Aged about 59 years, Occ. Housewife,
      R/o. 201, VIMACO Enclave,
      In front of I.G. Bunglow, Camp Amravati,
      Tah. & Dist. Amravati.                                           ... PETITIONER

               ...VERSUS...

1.    The Vice Chancellor, Sant Gadge
      Baba Amravati University,
      Tah. & Dist. Amravati

2.    Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University,
      Through its Registrar Tah. & Dist. Amravati.

3.    Joint Director,
      Higher Education Amravati Division,
      Amravati.                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amol Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Ghate, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mrs. S. S. Jachak, A.G.P. for respondent no.3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              CORAM:- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED :- 25.07.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ghate, learned

counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mrs. Jachak, learned

counsel for respondent no.3.

2 wp1268.21.odt

2. The petition challenges the order dated 23.01.2020

passed by University and College Tribunal, Nagpur whereby the

application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of

1 year 45 days has been dismissed. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for

the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has put in 25 years of

service, after which his services have been illegally terminated by

respondent no.2 by the order dated 24.04.2018, against which the

petitioner, under misconception, had approached to the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, which had directed his

reinstatement, to enforce which order he had approached the

Hon'ble Chancellor and various other authorities. However,

realizing that an appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra

Public Universities Act, 2016 would be the only remedy, he had

approached the counsel for filing of an appeal, which has been

filed on 10.07.2019, resulting in the aforesaid delay. He,

therefore, submits that considering the services put in by the

petitioner, which have been illegally terminated, the petitioner had

a right to file an appeal. It is contended that the reasons given,

justify the condonation of the delay and the impugned order does

not consider them in their proper perspective, due to which it is

liable to be quashed and set aside and the delay is liable to be

condoned.

3 wp1268.21.odt

3. Mr. Ghate, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2,

with all vehemence at his command, opposes the contention and

submits that the petitioner was not entitled to approach the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, as no

proceedings before it were maintainable to challenge the

impugned order, in spite of which, the petitioner intentionally

spent that time before the Commission. It is contended that the

proceedings before the Commission, are still going on, for which

he has invited my attention to the communication dated

28.06.2022 sent by Under Secretary of the National Commission

for Scheduled Castes to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent

no.2. He further submits that the respondents have been required

to approach the Division Bench of this Court challenging the

actions initiated by the petitioner with the said Commission. He,

therefore, submits that there is no justification whatsoever for the

delay occasioned.

4. Learned A.G.P. supports the contention of Mr. Ghate,

learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

5. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has put in 25

years of service and has thereafter faced the order of termination, 4 wp1268.21.odt

may be after holding of an inquiry. However, right to challenge

such a termination is vested with the petitioner under the

provisions of Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities

Act. The delay occasioned, is on account of approaching a wrong

forum under a mistaken impression that it was competent to

redress the grievance of the petitioner vis a vis his perceived illegal

termination. That being so, the delay is not of such a nature as to

disentitle the petitioner of an opportunity to challenge his

termination on merits. It is the trite position of law that insofar as

delay is concerned, it should not be permitted to defeat the rights

of a person to approach the Court of law.

6. Mr. Patil has placed reliance on Anil Ramdas Pawar Vs.

Union of India an Ors.;1, which holds that the Court cannot

suspect the cause for delay unless it is lacking bona fides and

acceptability of an application for delay is the criterion and not the

length of time, relying upon Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing

Committee of Ragunathpur Nafar Academy,2 in which the

parameters of sufficient cause have been enunciated and it has

been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there should be a liberal,

1 2020 (4) Mh.L.J. 280 2 2013 (12) SCC 649 5 wp1268.21.odt

pragmatic, justice orientated non pedantic approach while dealing

with an application for condonation of delay, for the Courts are

not supposed to legalize injustice but are obliged to remove

injustice.

7. The facts narrated above and the approach directed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court would indicate that a ground for

condonation of delay was made out. The learned tribunal, from

the perusal of the impugned order, appears to have gone into

technicalities, which were not justified to be looked into,

considering that the matter merited a liberal approach in

considering the question of condonation of delay.

8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed by University and

College Tribunal, Nagpur in Misc. Application No.16/2019, is

hereby quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of

delay is hereby allowed.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as

to costs.

JUDGE kahale Digitally signed byYOGESH ARVIND KAHALE Signing Date:26.07.2022 15:27