IMPORTANT POINT
If no time-limit has been prescribed in a statute to apply before the appropriate forum, in that case, he has to come before the court within a reasonable time.

JUDGMENT

PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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. 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 not apply to such appeals and accordingly remanded the matter before the School Tribunal.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order has preferred thisappeal.

4. The facts of the case are as follows:

4.1. On August 16, 1996 the appellant was appointed as the Headmaster of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vidhyalaya run by Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Then respondent No.1 was acting as the in-charge Headmaster of the said School. 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. On August 21,1996 such appointment of the appellant was duly approved by the Education Officer, after following due procedure. 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 condonation of delay before the School Tribunal (being Misc. Appeal No. 78/2006) challenging the appointment of the appellant. By an order dated 14th March, 2007, the said application was dismissed by the School Tribunal. 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.

4.2. 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. Such resignation was duly accepted by the Management. It also noticed 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. Such permission was granted to the Management. After following the due procedure, the post of Headmaster was filled up by the Management on August 14, 1996.

4.3. The School Tribunal duly considered the matter on merits and noticed 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, the appellant was working since then and the said fact was known to the respondent No.1. Admittedly, he did not 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 condone the delay and dismissed the application.

5. 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 not apply to appeals filed under Section 9(1)(b) of the said Act. It is to be noted that respondent No. 1 filed writ petition before the High Court and on August 2,2007, the High Court was pleased to dismiss the same, observing that the Presiding Officer was right in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of about 10 years in preferring the application. Subsequently, it further appears that in 2009, respondent No.1 filed a review petition before the High Court when the High Court was pleased to recall the order dated August 2, 2007 and restored the same on the file and thereafter on July 1, 2010, it allowed the writ petition.

6. In these circumstances, the only question that