GANESH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:23873

                                                                         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 29 th June 2015 and joined duty on 1 st July

          2015. He allegedly tendered resignation on 22 nd 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                                                                   Page 1 of 4
                                                           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 4 th 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                                                               Page 2 of 4
                                                          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 12 th 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 22 nd December 2015. The

letter further reveals that he was permitted to resume the duty on 1 st 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 28 th

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                                                              Page 3 of 4
                                                        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                                                            Page 4 of 4