1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7001 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.10955 of 2019)

BALKRISHNA WAMAN ZAMBARE                           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

SIDDHESHWAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, DONGARSONI & ORS.    Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T R. BANUMATHI, J.:

Leave granted.

(2) 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 condone the

delay in filing the petition before the School Tribunal.

(3) Brief facts are that the appellant was appointed in the

respondent no.1 school as a laboratory attendant on a vacant

permanent post vide appointment letter dated 06.10.1998.  The

appellant’s appointment as a laboratory attendant was approved

by the Education Officer by Order dated 06.03.1999.  According

to the appellant, subsequently on 26.09.2011 the appellant was

also promoted to the post of junior clerk by respondent no.1

school.   Appellant’s  promotion  as  a  junior  clerk  was  also

approved by the Education Officer by an Order dated 15.10.2012.

(4)  According to the appellant, there was dispute between two

groups  of  trustees  of  respondent  No.1-Institution.  As  the

appellant was promoted by the previous body of trustees, the

2

subsequently  appointed  new  body  which  came  to  power  on

22.11.2013,  did  not  allow  him  to  work  and  sign  the  school

attendance  register  w.e.f.  30.11.2013  which  amounts  to  oral

termination.  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 not allow

him to join.

(5) 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. 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as junior clerk, the appellant has withdrawn the Writ Petition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.  

(6) 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.  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

not allowed to work.  By the order dated 02.05.2016, the High

Court  has  set  aside  the  approval  granted  by  the  Education

Officer on 23.02.2015.  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

3

Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur along with Civil

Misc.  Application  No.20  of  2016  praying  for  condonation  of

delay  in  filing  the  same.  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 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.

(7) As pointed out earlier, the appellant filed Civil Misc.

Application  No.20  of  2016  for  condonation  of  delay  of  two

years, ten months and fourteen days in challenging the order of

oral  termination  dated  30.11.2013.  The  School  Tribunal  vide

order dated 06.11.2017 condoned the delay by holding that the

delay has been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. The

Tribunal  further  held  that  the  appellant  was  in  repeated

correspondence  with  the  respondent-Institution  between

31.11.2013  and  04.11.2016  regarding  his  case  and  all

correspondence have been filed on record and thus during the

period of delay, the appellant was never negligent at all and

hence, the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned. The

Tribunal has thus allowed the application for condonation of

delay subject to the payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the

respondent-Institution.  

(8) Being  aggrieved  by  condoning  the  delay,  the  first

respondent-Management preferred the writ petition before the

High  Court.   The  High  Court  by  the  impugned  order  dated

04.03.2019 has set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed

4

the  writ  petition.   Consequently,  the  appeal  filed  by  the

appellant  before  the  School  Tribunal  came  to  be  dismissed.

Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Court.

(9) We have heard Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant.  Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, learned counsel

appearing  for  the  respondent-Management  and  Mr.  Nishant  R.

Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

State and also perused the impugned judgment and the materials

on record.

(10) By the Order dated 13.12.2016 the service of the appellant

was terminated with retrospective effect from 30.11.2013.  Case

of  the  appellant  is  that  there  were  two  groups  in  the

Management  of  the  respondent  school  and  because  of  the

differences between the two groups, his service came to be

terminated.   The  appellant  relies  upon  the  order  of  the

District Education Officer dated 06.03.1999 in and by which the

District Education Officer has approved the appointment of the

appellant as a lab attendant.  The appellant also relies upon

the order of the District Education Officer dated 15.10.2012 in

and by which the District Education Officer has approved the

promotion of the appellant has a junior clerk.  As rightly

pointed out by the Tribunal, the appellant was in repeated

correspondence with respondent-Institution between 31.11.2013

and 04.11.2016 and he has filed the correspondence on record.

(11) Considering the submissions of Mr. Sachin Patil, learned

counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant,  and  also  facts  and

circumstances of the case, in our view the delay in filing the

5

appeal before the School Tribunal has to be condoned 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.   Such  an  opportunity  is  to  be  granted  to  the

appellant as his appointment as lab attendant and also his

promotion as junior clerk were duly approved by the District

Education Officer.  In view of the approval granted by the

District Education Officer both for lab attendant and as junior

clerk, the appellant must be given an opportunity to challenge

the  order  of  termination  by  the  respondent-Institution  or

otherwise the appellant will be subjected to great hardship.

(12) In the result, the impugned order of the High Court is set

aside and this appeal is allowed.

(13) Consequently,  Appeal  NO(s).75/2016  and  1/2017  pending

before the School Tribunal shall stand restored to the file of

the School Tribunal which shall afford sufficient opportunity

to both the parties and proceed with the appeals and dispose of

the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within

a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this

Order.  All contentions raised by the parties are left open to

be raised before the School Tribunal.  

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 4, 2019.