12. WP 1009 of 2026.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1009/2026 Naresh s/o Mahadev Ghodke ...Versus… Shri Ganesh Kumeriya, Secretary, Rohit Bahuuddeshiya Seva Vikas Sanstha, Nagpur and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. Bharat Chandrakapure, Advocate for petitioner CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 22/07/2026 1. The present petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 02/09/2024, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur in Misc. Application No.01/2018, whereby application for condonation of delay of 2 years 6 months and 9 days in filing appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 came to be rejected. 2. Appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay on 03/03/2018. It is the case of the petitioner that his services were orally terminated w.e.f. 03/08/2015. The Management came up with a case that the petitioner had himself tendered his resignation on 14/05/2011, which was accepted on 30/05/2011. The petitioner came up with a contention that although resignation was accepted, he was attending the school and has worked till 03/08/2015, on which date, otherwise termination was effected. He has also stated that although he was attending the 2026:BHC-NAG:9355 12. WP 1009 of 2026.odt 2 school after resignation, he was not allowed to sign the muster roll. The contention is that even after 30/05/2011, the Management has issued a show-cause-notice dated 24/06/2011, which indicates that he was continued in service. 3. The learned Tribunal has rejected the application, discarding the explanation offered by the petitioner that appeal could not be filed immediately due to financial constraints. 4. As noticed above, the petitioner does not dispute that resignation was tendered in May, 2011. He contends that despite the said resignation, he worked in the school till August, 2015. The contention is that he has not signed the muster roll after 2011. In other words, the contention is that for a period of over 4 years and 3 months, the petitioner rendered service without signing the muster roll and without receiving salary. 5. At the outset, this explanation does not inspire confidence. Thereafter, on 03/08/2015 onwards also except for a bald explanation that the appeal could not be filed within limitation due to financial constraints, there is no explanation for not filing appeal during the prescribed period of limitation. The appeal, as recorded above, is delayed by 2 years six months and 9 days. The learned Tribunal has also noticed that not only the petitioner has not filed appeal within prescribed period of limitation, within a reasonable period from the date of alleged otherwise termination, he has also not lodged any complaint with the Authorities of Education Department etc. 6. The reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal for rejecting the application for condonation of delay appear to be 12. WP 1009 of 2026.odt 3 just and proper. Not only that after the impugned order, dated 02/09/2024 came to be passed, the present petition is filed on 18/10/2025 i.e. after a period of over one year and one month. Even after filing of the petition, the petitioner did not care to circulate the petition. The petition is listed today for the first time without being circulated. The conduct of the petitioner, even after passing of the impugned order, shows complete negligence in prosecution of the matter. 7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the settled legal principle that length of delay is not material consideration for dealing with application for condonation of delay and the reasons for the delay must weigh with the Courts while deciding application for condonation of delay and further that the Courts must adopt a liberal approach while dealing with application for condonation of delay, with a view to make an endeavour to decide the matters on merits rather than dismissing the same on the ground of delay. Whereas, the said legal principle cannot be disputed, it is also equally well settled that when time for taking particular action comes to an end, a right is vested with the other side that without just cause, the issue which has assumed quietus, will not be reopened. 8. In the present case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no plausible explanation for inordinate delay of over 2 years and 6 months and the conduct of the petitioner after passing of the impugned order of rejection of 12. WP 1009 of 2026.odt 4 application for condonation of delay also does not demonstrate diligence on his part. 9. In view of the reasons recorded above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Wadkar