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 of Private Schools Conditions of Service Regulation Act hereinafter referred to as the MEPS Act , the provisions of limitation do number apply to such appeals and accordingly remanded the matter before the School Tribunal.
The School Tribunal, after hearing the parties, found that respondent No.1 herein on August 9, 1995 voluntarily resigned from the post of the In charge Headmaster of the said School.
This appeal is directed against the order dated July 1, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 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.
It is recorded in the said order that respondent No.1 claiming himself to be the senior most teacher in the School, having been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1991 and the Management has denied his claim to the said post of Headmaster.
By an order dated 14th March, 2007, the said application was dismissed by the School Tribunal.
It appears from the facts that on July 11, 2007, respondent No.1, after a delay of 9 years and 11 months, filed an application for companydonation of delay before the School Tribunal being Misc.
It also numbericed that the Management thereafter applied before the Deputy Director of Education and sought permission to appoint a Headmaster after publication of an advertisement in accordance with the MEPS Rules.
On August 16, 1996 the appellant was appointed as the Headmaster of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vidhyalaya run by Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal.
On August 21,1996 such appointment of the appellant was duly approved by the Education Officer, after following due procedure.
The School Tribunal duly companysidered the matter on merits and numbericed that respondent No.1 himself presided over the meeting of the Managing Committee and approved the appointment of the present appellant as Headmaster of the said School.
Admittedly, he did number apply before the appropriate authority for appropriate remedy, save and except he filed representations addressed to R M. In these circumstances, the School Tribunal refused to companydone the delay and dismissed the application.
After following the due procedure, the post of Headmaster was filled up by the Management on August 14, 1996.
Such resignation was duly accepted by the Management.
The appointment of the appellant was approved in a meeting held on August 14, 1996 and the respondent No.1 presided over the said meeting.
Such permission was granted to the Management.
Being aggrieved, a writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 before the High Court and the High Court remanded the matter to the School Tribunal, holding that the provisions of limitation do number apply to appeals filed under Section 9 1 b of the said Act.
Then respondent No.1 was acting as the in charge Headmaster of the said School.
The appellant being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this appeal.
Appeal No.
The facts of the case are as follows 4.1.
78/2006 challenging the appointment of the appellant.
Admittedly, the appellant was working since then and the said fact was known to the respondent No.1.
