LexLONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN versus DATTATRAYA EKNATH MANE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 775 LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN v. DATTATRAYA EKNATH MANE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7921 of 2013) ' SEPTEMBER 10, 2013. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND PINAKl CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Delay/Laches: Delay in filing appeal before School Tribunal - Appointment of Headmaster challenged belatedly - Held: If A B c no time-limit has been prescribed in a statute to apply before appropriate forum, court has to be approached within a reasonable time - In the instant case, appointment of 0 appellant was within the knowledge of respondent from day one, but he did not take any steps for a long time - Period of 9 years and 11 months, is an inordinate delay to pursue the remedy and that too without submitting any cogent reason therefor - Court has no power to condone the same in such E a case - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - s. 9 -Appeal. The appointment of the appellant as the Headmaster was approved in a meeting held on August 14, 1996, which was presided over by respondent No.1 as F Officiating Headmaster. On August 16, 1996 the appellant was appointed on the said post. On July 11, 2007, respondent No.1 challenged the appointment of the appellant and filed an application for condonation of delay before the School Tribunal. By order dated 14-3-2007, the G said application was dismissed by the School Tribunal, observing that respondent No.1 had denied himself the claim to the said post of Headmaster. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the High 775 H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A Court, but in the review petition it recalled the order and remanded the matter to the School Tribunal, holding that the provisions of limitation do not apply to appeals filed u/s 9(1 )(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 gives a right to an employee of a private school who C is aggrieved by an order of the Management in respect of dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank or supersession to prefer an appeal before the School Tribunal. If no time-limit has been prescribed in a statute to apply before the appropriate forum, in that case, he has D to come before the court within a reasonable time. The period of 9 years and 11 months, is an inordinate delay to pursue the remedy of a person and without submitting any cogent reason therefor. The court has no power to condone the same in such a case. Furthermore, it is to E be noted that appointment of the appellant was within the knowledge of respondent No.1 from day one but he did not take any steps for such a long time. In these circumstances, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal is affirmed. [para 7-8) [780- F G-H; 781-B-D-G] G H Cicily Kaflarackal v. Vehicle Factory 2012 (8) SCR 95 = 2012 (8) SCC 524, State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty 2011 (2) SCR 704 =2011 (3) SCC 436 and K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh 1986 (3) SCR 993 =1986 (4) sec 531, relied on. Case Law Reference: 2012 (8) SCR 95 relied on 2011 (2) SCR 704 relied on 1986 (3) SCR 993 relied on para 7 para 7 para 7 LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN v. DATTATRAYA 777 EKNATH MANE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. A 7921 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07 .2010 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2462 of 2007. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari for the Appellant. Anil Kumar, Shankar Chillarge (for Asha Gopalan Nair) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted. B c 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 1, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay D whereby the High Court remanded the matter to the School Tribunal directing it to register the appeal and hear the same in accordance with law. The High Court felt that if an appeal is preferred against an order of supersession before the School Tribunal under Section 9(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees E of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the MEPS Act'), the provisions of limitation do not apply to such appeals and accordingly remanded the matter before the School Tribunal. 3. The appellant being ag
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.