Bombay High Court
VYANKATI BABANRAO BONDHAREversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION LATUR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The Court held that the School Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously and the applications for condonation of delay must be allowed.
Summary
The petitioners, teachers employed by a school managed by respondent No.3, alleged harassment, salary stoppage and illegal termination after a dispute over the appointment of a headmaster. They repeatedly approached the Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education, who directed the school to retain them, and were eventually advised to file appeals before the School Tribunal. Their appeals, filed 374 days after termination, were rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of undue delay, leading them to file writ petitions seeking condonation of the delay. The respondents argued that the petitioners had not diligently pursued the remedy and had abandoned their posts. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal erred in refusing condonation despite the petitioners' continuous correspondence with education authorities. Finding that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously, the Court allowed the writ petitions and ordered condonation of the delay.
Issues considered
- Whether the School Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioners' applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals against termination.
- Whether a delay of 374 days in filing the appeals is condonable in view of the petitioners' continuous correspondence with education authorities.
- Whether the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction properly in dismissing the appeals.
Subjects
- termination of service
- condonation of delay
- school tribunal
- education officer
- illegal termination
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4500
(1) 957-wp-13417-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13417 OF 2024
GOVIND NAMDEVRAO SONTAKKE
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION LATUR REGION AND
OTHERS
...
Mr. V. S. Panpatte and Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondents-State.
…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13418 OF 2024
SANJEEVAN SAHEBRAO MORE
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION AND OTHERS
...
Mr. V. S. Panpatte and Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, AGP for Respondents-State.
…
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13420 OF 2024
VYANKATI BABANRAO BONDHARE
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EDUCATION LATUR AND OTHERS
...
Mr. V. S. Panpatte and Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. V. M. Lomte, AGP for Respondents-State.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2026.
P.C.:-
1. The petitioners takes exception to order dated 10.09.2024
passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, thereby their
applications to condone delay caused in filing Appeals have been
rejected.
(2) 957-wp-13417-2024.odt
2. The petitioners were appointed in respondent no.4-School
run by respondent no.3-Management. While petitioners were
working in school, some disputes arose regarding appointment of
Headmaster. The petitioners were harassed and served with show
cause notices. Later on, salary was stopped and hindrances were
created in discharge of duties. The petitioners approached
Education Authorities complaining atrocities of management. The
Education Officer took cognizance of complaints made by
petitioners and similarly situated employees and directed
respondent/management to desist from illegal activities against
employees.
3. By communication dated 25.11.2022 Education Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Nanded directed Headmaster of school to continue
services of petitioners, else serious action would be taken against
school management. Similar directions were issued by further
communication dated 06.12.2022. On 17.03.2023, Education
Officer directed petitioners to approach School Tribunal, since
management was asserting case of termination. The petitioners
approached Deputy Director of Education, Latur impugning
directions given by Education Officer. However, Deputy Director of
Education affirmed view of Education Officer and left petitioners
with remedy to approach School Tribunal. Eventually, petitioners
filed Appeal before School Tribunal assailing otherwise termination
(3) 957-wp-13417-2024.odt
alongwith applications to condone delay. The Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal rejected petitioners’ applications. Eventually,
dismissed Appeal.
4. The notice of these writ petitions was issued to respondents
by order dated 09.12.2024. The notices were duly served upon
respondent nos.3 and 4. Again on 17.07.2025 fresh notices were
issued to respondent nos.3 and 4 indicating that petitions would be
heard finally at the stage of admission. The fresh notices are also
served upon respondent nos.3 and 4, however, none appears for
them.
5. Mr. Nagargoje, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners
would submit that Tribunal had adopted hyper technical approach
while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay
caused in filing Appeals. He would submit that on 09.11.2022,
Management communicated petitioners that in view of their
unauthorized absence without leave, they are deemed to have
abandoned their services. The aforesaid communication was taken
as cause of action for approaching Education Officer and,
ultimately, School Tribunal. He would, therefore, urge that
petitioners were consistently representing against illegal
termination before various authorities and in light ultimate
direction given by Education Officer as well as Deputy Director of
Education, petitioners approached School Tribunal. Therefore,
(4) 957-wp-13417-2024.odt
delay in filing Appeals was unintentional and technical, that ought
to have been condoned.
6. Per contra, learned AGPs appearing for respondent nos.1 and
2 in respective matters supports impugned order.
7. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of
impugned order, it can be observed that School Tribunal was of
view that petitioners have not diligently approached Tribunal,
although they had knowledge of termination of their services and
instead continued their agitation and representations before
incompetent forum. The School Tribunal has further observed that
petitioners unnecessarily made correspondence with Education
Officer, although they were aware about remedy before School
Tribunal.
8. It appears that, petitioners were appointed on establishment
of respondent no.4 by following due process of law. They were
qualified person to hold post. Their services were approved by
competent authority. However, due to dispute in management,
they were prevented from discharging their duties. The record
shows that atleast till 2021 they were paid salary. The
management has taken stand that, since 2017, petitioners have
abandoned their services. However, such contention appears to be
(5) 957-wp-13417-2024.odt
inconsistent with record. It is discernible that petitioners took
cause of action dated 09.11.2022 for filing Appeals, since
respondent–management had specifically conveyed to them that
their services were deemed to have been abandoned.
9. In that view of matter, if petitioners made continuous follow
up with Education Officer and higher authorities for redressal of
grievance against management and ultimately, were constrained to
file Appeals on communication of deemed termination of services,
pragmatic view of matter ought to have been taken by Tribunal.
The delay of 374 days caused in filing Appeals is duly explained in
light of continuous correspondence made by petitioners with
competent authorities.
10. In that view of matter, this Court finds that Tribunal failed
to exercise jurisdiction in judicious manner. Hence, Writ Petitions
stand allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (C) and (D).
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026
Checking your session…