High Court of Bombay

Satchidananda Chintamani Behera Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University and Ors.

MANU/MH/2494/2022

25.07.2022

Civil

Delay should not be permitted to defeat the rights of a person to approach the Court of law

The petition challenges the order passed by University and College Tribunal, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 1 year 45 days has been dismissed. The petitioner, submits that, the Petitioner has put in 25 years of service, after which his services have been illegally terminated by Respondent no. 2 by the order, against which the Petitioner, under misconception, had approached to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, which had directed his reinstatement, to enforce which order he had approached the Hon'ble Chancellor and various other authorities.

However, realizing that an appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 would be the only remedy, he had approached the counsel for filing of an appeal, which has been filed on 10th July, 2019, resulting in the aforesaid delay. He, therefore, submits that considering the services put in by the Petitioner, which have been illegally terminated, the Petitioner had a right to file an appeal.

It is a matter of record that the petitioner has put in 25 years of service and has thereafter faced the order of termination, may be after holding of an inquiry. However, right to challenge such a termination is vested with the petitioner under the provisions of Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act. The delay occasioned, is on account of approaching a wrong forum under a mistaken impression that it was competent to redress the grievance of the petitioner vis a vis his perceived illegal termination. That being so, the delay is not of such a nature as to disentitle the petitioner of an opportunity to challenge his termination on merits. It is the trite position of law that insofar as delay is concerned, it should not be permitted to defeat the rights of a person to approach the Court of law.

In Anil Ramdas Pawar Vs. Union of India an Ors., it is held that, the Court cannot suspect the cause for delay unless it is lacking bona fides and acceptability of an application for delay is the criterion and not the length of time. In Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Ragunathpur Nafar Academy, it has been held by the Apex Court that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice orientated non pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalize injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

A ground for condonation of delay was made out. The learned tribunal, from the perusal of the impugned order, appears to have gone into technicalities, which were not justified to be looked into, considering that the matter merited a liberal approach in considering the question of condonation of delay. The impugned order passed by University and College Tribunal, is set aside. Application for condonation of delay is allowed.

Tags : Delay Condonation Sufficient cause

Share :