997-WP-2312-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 997 WRIT PETITION NO. 2312 OF 2021 Ganesh Bhagwan Choudhari VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Mr. R. D. Biradar for the Petitioner. Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for State. Mr. Anshuman Deshmukh h/f U. B. Gite for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 12 JUNE 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner assails the order dated 28th January 2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal at Aurangabad in Misc. Application No.4 of 2019, whereby the learned Presiding Officer refused to condone the delay of 1130 days in filing the appeal. 3. Mr. Biradar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that initially the Petitioner was appointed on 29th June 2015 and joined duty on 1st July 2015. He allegedly tendered resignation on 22nd December 2015. Thereafter, on 4th February 2016, Petitioner made representation recalling his resignation dated 22nd December 2015. On 27th February 2016 Respondent- management issued fresh appointment order and the Petitioner was Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:23873 997-WP-2312-2021.doc permitted to rejoin the duty. But from 29th May 2016 Respondent- management restrained him from signing the muster roll. Against which, Petitioner made various representations dated 4th July 2017 and 5th July 2017 to the relevant authorities. He further submits that using the muscle power, the Respondent-management has arbitrarily terminated the Petitioner by raising a theory of resignation. The delay was caused due to the time spent while making representations to the relevant authorities and due to consistent promises by the Respondent-management to reinstate the Petitioner in the service. He further submits that there was no fault attributable to the Petitioner in causing delay. The Petitioner has explained sufficiently the cause of delay before the learned College Tribunal, but despite that his application for condonation came to be dismissed without assigning reasons therefor. 4. Per contra Mr. Deshmukh h/f Mr. Gite, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 supports the order passed by the learned College Tribunal. He invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the impugned order, wherein the College Tribunal has assigned reason for rejection of application for condonation of delay that the Petitioner has failed to assign sufficient cause for not making representation within the specified period of limitation. He further submits that the contention of the Petitioner that he has explained the delay is not supported by facts on record. He further submits that there was huge delay in approaching the College Tribunal and therefore even after Shubham 997-WP-2312-2021.doc adopting liberal approach, the delay cannot be condoned. Therefore, he submits that the learned College Tribunal has rightly refused to condone the delay. 5. I have considered submissions of the respective parties and gone through the record, particularly the letter dated 12th July 2017 issued by the Principal of the concerned college addressed to the Petitioner which is at page No.42, which reveals that initially the Petitioner came to be appointed on 1st July 2015 and he tendered resignation on 22nd December 2015. The letter further reveals that he was permitted to resume the duty on 1st March 2016, but he was consistently absent from 28th May 2016. The Petitioner has explained the delay in paragraph 5 of his application by stating that the delay was caused while making representations to the authorities and due to false promises by the Respondent-management to reinstate him. It is for the College Tribunal to consider the matter on its own merits by appreciating the evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the College Tribunal ought not have rejected the application for condonation of delay on technical grounds. In view thereof, I am inclined to allow the present Petition thereby setting aside the impugned order. 6. In view thereof, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 28th January 2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal at Aurangabad in Misc. Application No.4 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. Shubham 997-WP-2312-2021.doc 7. Misc. Application No.4 of 2019 is allowed and delay is condoned. Appeal be registered and be decided on its own merits in accordance with law within a period of 6 months from today. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham