Brief facts are that the appellant was appointed in the respondent number1 school as a laboratory attendant on a vacant permanent post vide appointment letter dated 06.10.1998.
The School Tribunal vide order dated 06.11.2017 companydoned the delay by holding that the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant.
Since the Education Officer has granted approval for the promotion of the appellant as junior clerk, the appellant has withdrawn the Writ Petition No.5758 of 2013.
As the appellant was promoted by the previous body of trustees, the subsequently appointed new body which came to power on 22.11.2013, did number allow him to work and sign the school attendance register w.e.f.
Application No.20 of 2016 praying for companydonation of delay in filing the same.
Thereafter, the appellant requested the respondent Institution by various representations to permit him to work as Laboratory Attendant but despite the same, the appellant was number allowed to work.
30.11.2013 which amounts to oral termination.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant before the School Tribunal came to be dismissed.
Thereafter, the appellant had filed Appeal No.75 of 2016 challenging the oral termination dated 30.11.2013 of the post of Laboratory Attendant before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur along with Civil Misc.
As per the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No.5758 of 2013 dated 14.01.2015, the Education Officer vide order dated 23.02.2015 granted approval for the promotion of the appellant to the post of junior clerk.
As pointed out earlier, the appellant filed Civil Misc.
Being aggrieved by the termination order dated 13.12.2016, on 05.01.2017 the appellant has preferred Appeal No.01 of 2017 before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur.
Signature Not Verified 4 Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH According to the appellant, there was dispute between two Date 2019.09.14 100627 IST Reason groups of trustees of respondent No.1 Institution.
The appellants appointment as a laboratory attendant was approved by the Education Officer by Order dated 06.03.1999.
The Tribunal has thus allowed the application for companydonation of delay subject to the payment of companyts of Rs.1,000/ to the respondent Institution.
As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the appellant was in repeated companyrespondence with respondent Institution between 31.11.2013 and 04.11.2016 and he has filed the companyrespondence on record.
According to the appellant, subsequently on 26.09.2011 the appellant was also promoted to the post of junior clerk by respondent number1 school.
The respondent Institution filed Writ Petition No.4470 of 2015 challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Education Officer granting approval for the promotion of the appellant.
The High Court by the impugned order dated 04.03.2019 has set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition.
The appellant made various representations to various authorities expressing his grievance and vide letter dated 12.02.2014, the Education Officer directed Respondent No.1 Institution to allow the appellant to join his duties but despite this order, the respondent Institution did number allow him to join.
Being aggrieved by companydoning the delay, the first respondent Management preferred the writ petition before the High Court.
By the order dated 02.05.2016, the High Court has set aside the approval granted by the Education Officer on 23.02.2015.
Considering the submissions of Mr. Sachin Patil, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, and also facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the delay in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal has to be companydoned to enable the appellant to challenge the order of termination dated 01.12.2016 and also the oral order of termination dated 30.11.2013.Appellants promotion as a junior clerk was also approved by the Education Officer by an Order dated 15.10.2012.
Application No.20 of 2016 for companydonation of delay of two years, ten months and fourteen days in challenging the order of oral termination dated 30.11.2013.
During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent Institution vide order dated 13.12.2016 has terminated the service of the appellant from the post of Laboratory Attendant.
Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Court.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
By the Order dated 13.12.2016 the service of the appellant was terminated with retrospective effect from 30.11.2013.
This appeal arises out of judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition NO.14384 of 2018 dated 04.03.2019 in and by which the High Court has set aside the order of the School Tribunal and declining to companydone the delay in filing the petition before the School Tribunal.
