LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN v. DATTATRAYA EKNATH MANE & Ors.

Appointment of Headmaster challenged belatedly - Held: If no time-limit has been prescribed in a statute to apply before appropriate forum, court has to be approached within a reasonable time - appellant was within the knowledge of respondent from day one, but he did not take any steps for a long time - Period of 9 years and 11 months, is an inordinate delay to pursue the remedy and that too without submitting any cogent reason therefor - Court has no power to condone the same in such E a case - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - s. 9 -Appeal. The appointment of the appellant as the Headmaster was approved in a meeting held on August 14, 1996, which was presided over by respondent No.1 as F Officiating Headmaster. On August 16, 1996 the appellant was appointed on the said post. On July 11, 2007, respondent No.1 challenged the appointment of the appellant and filed an application for condonation of delay before the School Tribunal. By order dated 14-3-2007, the G said application was dismissed by the School Tribunal, observing that respondent No.1 had denied himself the claim to the said post of Headmaster. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the High 775 H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A Court, but in the review petition it recalled the order and remanded the matter to the School Tribunal, holding that the provisions of limitation do not apply to appeals filed u/s 9(1 )(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. B Allowing the appeal, the Court C D HELD: Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 gives a right to an employee of a private school who is aggrieved by an order of the Management in respect of dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank or supersession to prefer an appeal before the School Tribunal. If no time-limit has been prescribed in a statute to apply before the appropriate forum, in that case, he has to come before the court within a reasonable time. The period of 9 years and 11 months, is an inordinate delay to pursue the remedy of a person and without submitting any cogent reason therefor. The court has no power to condone the same in such a case. Furthermore, it is to E be noted that appointment of the appellant was within the knowledge of respondent No.1 from day one but he did not take any steps for such a long time. In these circumstances, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal is affirmed. [para 7-8) [780- F G-H; 781-B-D-G]