JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned advocate, waives service of rule for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.Amit V. Ghorpade, learned advocate, for Mr. A.R.Thacker, learned advocate, waives service of rule for the respondent No.3 and Ms. Tejal Rajput, learned AGP, waives service of rule of the respondent No.4.

2. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and order dated 7.9.2017 passed by the Gujarat Educational Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad whereby the Misc. Application No.99 of 2015 preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing of restoration of application after a period of more than 4½ years is rejected and the restoration application No.7 of 2015 is dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Special Civil Application is as follows:-

3.1 The petitioner was serving as a Computer Programmer in Commerce faculty of Shri A.K.Doshi Mahila College, Jamnagar since 1.8.2001 as a full time employee. It is further her case that she was being paid consolidated salary during her period of service. That the respondent No.1 Management issued showcause notice dated 18.12.2004 to the petitioner for remaining absent and further another notice dated 1.2.2005 came to be issued stating that the petitioner was on leave and not performing her duties. It is further the case of the petitioner that she replied to the said show-cause notices stating that she is going on leave as per the Rules and the College Management has to make alternative arrangement for the said period. It is further her case that the College Management without following due procedure, by letter dated 21.4.2005 terminated the services of the petitioner after payment of 3 months notice pay.

3.2 Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Application No.67 of 2006 before the Gujarat Affiliated College Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad praying for the relief of reinstatement with all due back wages and to give her salary as per the pay scale prescribed by the State Government and Saurashtra University.

3.3 The said application came to be dismissed for default on 14.3.2011 due to absence of the petitioner and her advocate on various dates.

3.4 That by application dated 29.9.2015, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay as well as for restoration of the application which was dismissed for default.

3.5 By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and also considering the merits of the case, dismissed the application for condonation of delay for a period of 4½ years. Accordingly, the application for restoration of the application was also dismissed on the ground of delay.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

4. Mr. Subhash G. Barot, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the order of dismissal by default dated 14.3.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the advocate who was appearing for the petitioner was not in contact with her and therefore, there was no occasion for her to know about the dismissal of her application for default. He further submitted that the application was filed by the advocate showing that the address of the petitioner was where she was working with the respondent college and therefore also, the order of dismissal was not communicated to her since it was not her residential address. He, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the delay as has occasioned was genuine and that the application of the petitioner ought to have been decided on merits. He submits that the petitioner be granted an opportunity to be heard on merits of the case and therefore, the present Special Civil Application be allowed.

5. Per contra, Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that the petitioner was not interested in working