LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWANversusDATTATRAYA EKNATH MANE & ORS.

                    [2013] 9 S.C.R. 775


            LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN                            A
                            v.
          DATTATRAYA EKNATH MANE & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 7921 of 2013)
                 SEPTEMBER 10, 2013.
                                                              B
             [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
            PINAKl CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

          '
    Delay/Laches:
                                                              c
     Delay in filing appeal before School Tribunal -
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 - In the instant case, appointment of 0
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

         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
C   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
D   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]
         Cicily Kaflarackal v. Vehicle Factory 2012 (8) SCR 95 =
    2012 (8) SCC 524, State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty 2011
    (2) SCR 704 =2011 (3) SCC 436 and K.R. Mudgal v. R.P.
    Singh 1986 (3) SCR 993 =1986 (4) sec 531, relied on.
G
                        Case Law Reference:
          2012 (8) SCR 95 relied on                     para 7
          2011 (2) SCR 704 relied on                    para 7
H         1986 (3) SCR 993       relied on            para 7
  LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN v. DATTATRAYA                      777
              EKNATH MANE
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                A
7921 of 2013.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07 .2010 of the
High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2462
of 2007.                                                           B
    Sudhanshu S. Choudhari for the Appellant.

     Anil Kumar, Shankar Chillarge (for Asha Gopalan Nair) for
the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   c
     PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 1,
2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay              D
whereby the High Court remanded the matter to the School
Tribunal directing it to register the appeal and hear the same
in accordance with law. The High Court felt that if an appeal is
preferred against an order of supersession before the School
Tribunal under Section 9(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees        E
of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the MEPS Act'), the provisions of
limitation do not apply to such appeals and accordingly
remanded the matter before the School Tribunal.

     3. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order has        F
preferred this appeal.

    4. The facts of the case are as follows :

    4.1. On August 16, 1996 the appellant was appointed as         G
    the Headmaster of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vidhyalaya run
    by Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Then respondent
    No.1 was acting as the in-charge Headmaster of the said
    School. The appointment of the appellant was approved
    in a meeting held on August 14, 1996 and the respondent        H
    778       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A         No.1 presided over the said meeting. On August 21, 1996
          such appointment of the appellant was duly approved by
          the Education Officer, after following due procedure. It
          appears from the facts that on July 11, 2007, respondent
          No.1, after a delay of 9 years and 11 months, filed an
B         application for condonation of delay before the School
          Tribunal (being Misc. Appeal No. 78/2006) challenging the
          appointment of the appellant. By an order dated 14th
          March, 2007, the said application was dismissed by the
          School Tribunal. It is recorded in the said order that
c         respondent No.1 claiming himself to be the senior most
          teacher in the School, having been appointed as an
          Assistant Teacher in the year 1991 and the Management
          has denied his claim to the said post of Headmaster.

          4.2. The School Tribunal, after hearing the parties, found
D         that respondent No.1 herein on August 9, 1995 voluntarily
          resigned from the post of the In-charge Headmaster of the
          said School. Such resignation was duly accepted by the
          Management. It also noticed that the Management
          thereafter applied before the Deputy Director of Education
E         and sought permission to appoint a Headmaster after
          publication of an advertisement in accordance with the
          MEPS Rules. Such permission was granted to the
          Management. After following the due procedure, the post
          of Headmaster was filled up by the Management on
F         August 14, 1996.

          4.3. The School Tribunal duly considered the matter on
          merits and noticed that respondent No.1 himself presided
          over the meeting of the Managing Committee and
          approved the appointment of the present appellant as
G
          Headmaster of the said School. Admittedly, the appellant
          was working since then and the said fact was known to
          the respondent No.1. Admittedly, he did not apply before
          the appropriate authority for appropriate remedy, save and
          except he filed representations addressed to R/M. In these
H
  LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN v. DATIATRAYA                        779
  EKNATH MANE [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
     circumstances, the School Tribunal refused to condone the        A
     delay and dismissed the application.

      5. Being aggrieved, a writ petition was filed by respondent
No.1 before the High Court and the High Court remanded the
matter to the School Tribunal, holding that the provisions of
                                                                      8
limitation do not apply to appeals filed under Section,9(1)(b)
of the said Act. It is to be noted that respondent No. 1 filed writ
petition before the High Court and on August 2, 2007, the High
Court was pleased to dismiss the same, observing that the
Presiding Officer was right in rejecting the application for          C
condonation of delay of about 10 years in preferring the
application. Subsequently, it further appears that in 2009,
respondent No.1 filed a review petition before the High Court
when the High Court was pleased to recall the order dated
August 2, 2007 and restored the same on the file and thereafter
on July 1, 2010, it allowed the writ petition.                        D

     6. In these circumstances, the only question that arises is,
whether an application can be filed by an aggrieved party even
long after 10 years. It is necessary for us to quote Section 9 of
the said Act for our consideration, which is set out hereunder :      E

     "9. Right of appeal to Tribunal to employees of a
     private school.

     (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or
     contract for the time being in force, [any employee in a         F
     private school,-

            (a) Who is dismissed or removed or whose
            services are otherwise terminated or who is
            reduced in rank, by the order passed by the               G
            Management; or

            (b) Who is superseded by the Management while
            making an appointment to any post by promotion,
            and who is aggrieved, shall have a right to appeal
                                                                      H
    780      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A                and may appeal against any such order or
                 supersession to the Tribunal constituted under
                 section 8:]

          Provided that, no such appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in
          any case where the matter has already been decided by
B
          a Court of competent jurisdiction or is pending before
          such Court, on the appointed date or where the order of
          dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or
          reduction in rank was passed by the Management at any
          time before the 1st July, 1976.
c
          (2) Such appeal shall be made by the employee to the
          Tribunal, within thirty days from the date of receipt by him
          of the order of dismissal, removal otherwise termination
          of service or reduction in rank, as the case may be.
D
          Provided that, where such order was made before the
          appointed date, such appeal may be made within sixty
          days from the said date.

          (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2),
E         the Tribunal may entertain an appeal made to it after the
          expiry of the said period of thirty or sixty days, as the case
          may be, if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient
          cause for not preferring the appeal within that period.

F         (4) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of [Five
          hundred] rupees, which shall not be refunded and shall
          be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State."

       7. We have noticed from the language of the said Section
  that the right of appeal is given to an employee of a private
G school who is aggrieved by an order of the Management in
  respect of dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank or
  supersession. In all these cases, the aggrieved person shall
  have a right to approach the Tribunal. Now, the sole question
  which falls for our consideration is : when an aggrieved person
H
   LONDHE PRAKASH BHAGWAN v. DATTATRAYA                       781
   EKNATH MANE [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
can apply before the Court, if no limitation is prescribed in the    A
statute for filing an appeal before the appropriate forum. We
have duly considered the said question. Even if we assume that
no limitation is prescribed in any statute to file an application
before the court in that case, can an aggrieved person come
before the court at his sweet will at any point of time ? The        B
answer must be in the negative. 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. This Court on a number of occasions, while
dealing with the matter of similar nature held that where even       c
no limitation has been prescribed, the petition must be filed
within a reasonable time. In our considered opinion, the period
of 9 years and 11 months, is nothing but 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        0
same in such case. (See: Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory
[2012 (8) SCC 524], State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty [2011
(3) sec 436] and K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh [1986 (4) sec
531]. In these cases, it has been held that the application should
be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay. Furthermore, it       E
is to 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 .

    . 8. In these circumstances, we find it is difficult for us to
uphold the decision of the High Court. We are sure that the said     F
question of inordinate delay missed out from the mind of the
court at the time of sending back the matter before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the High Court,
allow the appeal and affirm the order of the Tribunal.
                                                                     G
R.P.                                            Appeal allowed.