Advocates:
['PATIL SANDESH R', 'Notice of R No', 'served', '', 'AGP', 'Adv Ajit Gaikwad Patil', 'Girase Amarjitsing B']

wp4256.20.odt

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 4256 OF 2020

The President

Khandesh College Education Society

& another

Petitioners

Versus

Vasudeo s/o Bhaskar Bhirud & others

Respondents

Mr. S.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondent No. 3.

Mr. Khanapure, Advocate holding for Mr. Ajit Gaikwad-Patil,

Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.

DATE : 17^th July, 2021.

PER COURT :

1.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is fled challenging the order passed by the University and

College Tribunal, Aurangabad, on 30.01.2020 on delay condonation

application by which, the learned Tribunal condoned the delay in

preferring appeal against the oral termination of respondent No. 1.

2.

Factual matrix leading to this petition is that respondent

wp4256.20.odt

- 2 -

No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Professor with petitioner –

institution on 10^th November, 2010. Since his work was not

satisfactory, during the period of probation, respondent No. 1 came

to be terminated orally. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he

kept on visiting the Management with a request to reinstate him.

Almost one and half years were lost in this persuasion. It is his

case that the petitioner kept on assuring him that he would be

reinstated in service. Thereafter, he approached the Grievance

Committee. The Grievance Committee observed that injustice was

done to respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner-institution to

pay difference in salary to respondent No. 1 from the date of joining

the service. Since the directions of the Grievance Committee were

not complied with, respondent No. 1 approached this Court by fling

Writ Petition No. 4041/2016 which was disposed of on 26^th

September, 2018. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 preferred appeal

before the University and College Tribunal. Delay of 5 years, 11

months and 4 days was committed in preferring appeal. The learned

Tribunal, after hearing all the parties, condoned the delay observing

that respondent No. 1 has made out a suffcient case for condonation

of delay. It also observed that wrong advice given by counsel is

suffcient cause for condonation of delay. This order is impugned in

wp4256.20.odt

- 3 -

this writ petition.

3.

Shri Sandesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed gross error in

allowing the application for condonation of delay. He argued that

respondent No. 1 was very well aware that his services were

terminated but he did not prefer appeal within the prescribed period

of limitation. He submitted that for one and half years, respondent

No. 1 remained silent. Thereafter he approached the Grievance

Committee and thereafter he approached this Court and in the end,

he challenged the order of termination before the Tribunal. He

submitted that this shows that respondent No. 1 was all along

negligent in assertion of his rights. He submitted that law protects

the diligent and not the negligent. He further submitted that

respondent No. 1 did not receive a wrong advice but he consciously

did not challenge his termination before the Grievance Committee.

He did not raise any objection about his termination either before

Grievance Committee or before this Court. But he made monetary

claim. This shows that despite having been fully aware of his oral

termination, he did not prefer proper remedy as is permissible in law.

Therefore, the learned Tribunal committed gross error in allowing the

wp4256.20.odt

- 4 -

application for condonation of delay. He placed reliance on

judgments in the matter of D. Gopinathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala

and another reported in 2007 DGLS (Soft) 50 : 2007 AIR (SCW) 4713,

Maqbool Fatma vs. Deput