15-wp1696.20....

odt 1/4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION No.1696 OF 2020

(Chandrabhan s/o. Gajanan Barai Vs. Chandramani Bouddhavihar Samiti amgaon Rly.,
Tha. Amgaon, Distt. Gondia, through its Secretary and others)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. P.V. Thakare, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. I.N. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Bhagwan M. Lonare AGP for respondent No.2.
Mr. R.M. Wasnik, Advocate for respondent No.3.

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2025.

1. This petition takes exception to judgment and order

dated 7.1.2020 passed in School Tribunal Nagpur Appeal
No.20/2017 by the School Tribunal, Nagpur rejecting he appeal
preferred by employee.
2. By consent of both sides heard finally at the stage of
admission.
3. The petitioner is original appellant in Appeal
No.20/2017 filed by him before the School Tribunal. It is the
case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the year 1987 in
respondent-School. He claimed he was having requisite
qualification to be appointed as a trained Teacher from 1987
itself. It is alleged that respondent No.3 became trained
Teacher in year 1990 after acquiring qualification of [Link]. It is
the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.3 was
appointed on the post of Head Master in Milind Vidyalaya
Gortha in the year 1993-94 instead of petitioner. He further
15-wp1696.20....odt 2/4

states that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and the

respondent No.3 falls in O.B.C. category. It is further
contended by the order dated 22.2.1996 Education Officer
granted approval of appointment of respondent No.3 as a
Headmaster. Being aggrieved by supersession, petitioner filed
appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977
(in short, ‘MEPS Act’) before the School Tribunal claiming grant
of deemed promotion w.e.f. June 1995 on the post of
Headmaster. Learned School Tribunal rejected the appeal on
the ground that same has been preferred after long span of
more than 21 years of accrual of cause of action. It is also
observed that the appellant failed to make out any case for
condonaton of delay. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal
of the appeal, present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
School Tribunal ought to have entertained and decided the
appeal on merit rather than it dismissal on the point of
limitation. It is his submission that considering the facts of the
case, the petitioner has a good case on merit and hence it is just
and proper to set aside the impugned order and direct the
School Tribunal to decide the appeal on merit.
5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents
supported the impugned order.
6. The facts as they appear from the record clearly
indicate that the cause of action aggrieved for the petitioner to
prefer an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act in June 1995.
The appeal came to be filed in the year 2017 i.e. after lapse of
15-wp1696.20....odt 3/4

over 21 years long period. There cannot be any dispute made

about the proposition that lis between the parties is better
decided on merit rather than its disposal on technical, however,
that could not be construed as giving licence/liberty to any
party to prefer the proceeding after lapse of over two decades
and that too without giving any just reason for condonation of
delay.
7. The School Tribunal has considered these facts and
by relying upon he judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Prakash Bhagwan Londhe Vs. Dattatraya Eknath
Mane, 2014(2) Mh.L.J. 520 rejected the appeal. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that :
“right to an appeal is given to an
employee of a Private School who is
aggrieved by decision of Management in
respect of dismissal, removal, termination,
reduction in rank or supersession. In all
these cases aggrieved person shall have a
right to approach before the Tribunal. Even
if, no limitation is prescribed in any Statute
to file an application before the Court, the
applicant has to come before the Court
within reasonable time. The period of 09
years and 11 months is noting but an
inordinate delay to pursue remedy of a
person and without submitting any cogent
reasons thereof.”

8. It is often seen that unscrupulous litigants take their

own time to initiate proceedings in respect of any issue which is
a dead wood in fact. By filing such proceeding not only
prejudice is caused to the other side, but also the Courts are
burden with such unmerited litigation. Needless to say that on
 15-wp1696.20....odt 4/4

account of occupation of judicial time by unscrupulous and

unmerited litigants, the decision on genuine lis gets delayed.
Hence, when Courts find that the litigation is hopelessly time
barred and there is absolutely no justification of delay, such
unscrupulous litigants need to be dealt with sternly.
9. Ordinary this Court ought to have been justified in
imposing costs not less than Rs.50,000/-, however, in view of
the fact that the petitioner is now retired person, the cost is
quantified at Rs.10,000/- payable to the Matoshree Old Age
Home at Adasa Sonpur, District Nagpur.
10. The petition stands dismissed in above terms.

(R.M. JOSHI, J.)

Wadode

Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode

Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/07/2025 16:57:33