Supreme Court Restores Teacher’s Appeal: Delay in Filing Tribunal Case Condoned

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a service matter involving the termination of a school employee and the delay in filing an appeal before the School Tribunal. The case, Balkrishna Waman Zambare v. Siddheshwar Shikshan Sanstha, focused on whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s plea for condonation of delay in challenging his termination.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Balkrishna Waman Zambare, was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant at Siddheshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Dongarsoni, in Maharashtra on October 6, 1998. His appointment was duly approved by the Education Officer on March 6, 1999. Later, on September 26, 2011, he was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk, which was also approved by the Education Officer on October 15, 2012.

The dispute arose when the management of the school underwent a change in November 2013. The newly appointed management prevented the appellant from signing the attendance register from November 30, 2013, effectively terminating his employment without any formal order. Despite repeated representations and an order from the Education Officer directing the school to reinstate him, the management refused to allow him to work.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel argued the following points:

The appellant’s termination was illegal as it was done orally without any written order or proper inquiry.
He continuously pursued remedies by making representations to various authorities between 2013 and 2016.
His delay in approaching the School Tribunal was not due to negligence but because he was actively seeking reinstatement through official channels.
His appointment and promotion were both approved by the Education Officer, which should be considered while deciding the validity of his termination.
Rejecting his appeal due to procedural delay would result in grave injustice, as he had no other means of legal recourse.

Arguments of the Respondents

The respondent school management countered with the following arguments:

The appellant did not file his appeal within the prescribed limitation period before the School Tribunal.
The delay of two years and ten months in filing the appeal was excessive and unjustified.
Once the new management took over, they had the discretion to review prior appointments and promotions.
The High Court was correct in rejecting the condonation of delay as there was no justifiable reason provided by the appellant.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Justification for Condonation of Delay

The Supreme Court examined the period between November 30, 2013 (the date of oral termination), and May 2, 2016 (the High Court’s ruling setting aside the Education Officer’s approval of his promotion). The Court found that the appellant had been continuously making efforts to regain his job and had valid reasons for not approaching the Tribunal earlier.

“Considering the continuous pursuit of remedies through representations and official correspondence, the delay in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal is justifiable and should be condoned.”

2. High Court’s Error in Rejecting Delay

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s approach, stating that procedural technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice. The Court reiterated its stance from previous judgments that the right to appeal should not be dismissed purely on the basis of delay if there is a reasonable explanation.

“A litigant should not suffer due to procedural delays if the delay is satisfactorily explained and the cause is meritorious.”

3. Approval of Appointment and Promotion

The Court considered the fact that both the appellant’s initial appointment as a Laboratory Attendant and his promotion to Junior Clerk were duly approved by the Education Officer. It held that such approvals carried legal significance and could not be ignored by the new management.

4. Consequences of Denying Appeal

The Court noted that denying the appellant an opportunity to challenge his termination would cause undue hardship and deprive him of his livelihood.

“In view of the approval granted by the District Education Officer both for Lab Attendant and as Junior Clerk, the appellant must be given an opportunity to challenge the order of termination.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s order. The judgment stated:

“The delay in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal is condoned, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits.”

The Court directed the School Tribunal to decide the appeal within six months, ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for employment disputes in educational institutions. Key takeaways include:

Procedural delays should not prevent employees from seeking justice if they have continuously pursued remedies through other channels.
School management cannot arbitrarily terminate employees without following due process.
The approval of appointments and promotions by Education Officers carries legal weight and cannot be disregarded by subsequent management bodies.
The School Tribunal must ensure that appeals are heard on their merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that procedural technicalities should not be used to deny substantive justice, particularly in employment disputes affecting livelihood.

Petitioner Name: Balkrishna Waman Zambare.
Respondent Name: Siddheshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Dongarsoni & Others.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 04-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Balkrishna Waman Zam vs Siddheshwar Shikshan Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category