Supreme Court condones delay in filing appeal against school termination: Balkrishna Waman Zambare vs. Siddheshwar Shikshan Sanstha (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 4 September 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 836

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a delay in filing an appeal before the School Tribunal be excused if the appellant provides a reasonable explanation? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the termination of a school employee. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in overturning the School Tribunal’s decision to condone a delay in filing an appeal against an alleged oral termination and a subsequent termination order. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna delivered the judgment, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Balkrishna Waman Zambare, was initially appointed as a laboratory attendant at the respondent no.1 school on 6 October 1998. His appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 6 March 1999. Subsequently, on 26 September 2011, he was promoted to the post of junior clerk, which was also approved by the Education Officer on 15 October 2012.

A dispute arose between two groups of trustees of the respondent no.1 institution. The appellant, having been promoted by the previous body of trustees, was not allowed to work by the new body, effective 30 November 2013. This was considered an oral termination by the appellant. He made several representations to various authorities, and on 12 February 2014, the Education Officer directed the respondent institution to allow him to join his duties. However, the institution did not comply.

Following a High Court order on 14 January 2015, the Education Officer approved the appellant’s promotion to junior clerk on 23 February 2015. The respondent-Institution challenged this order in a Writ Petition. The High Court set aside the approval on 2 May 2016. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal before the School Tribunal on 30 November 2013, challenging his oral termination, along with an application for condonation of delay. During the pendency of this appeal, the institution terminated his service as a laboratory attendant on 13 December 2016. The appellant filed another appeal on 5 January 2017, challenging this termination.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The School Tribunal initially condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the oral termination, noting that the appellant had been in continuous communication with the institution. The High Court, however, set aside the Tribunal’s order, leading to the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal. This decision of the High Court was challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the School Tribunal. While no specific statute or section is explicitly mentioned in the judgment regarding condonation of delay, the general principle of allowing a party to be heard on merits if there is a reasonable explanation for the delay is discussed. The court also notes that the appellant’s appointment as a lab attendant and his promotion as a junior clerk were duly approved by the District Education Officer. The court also considered the fact that the appellant was in continuous correspondence with the respondent-Institution between 31.11.2013 and 04.11.2016.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that his service was terminated due to internal disputes within the school management.
• He emphasized that his initial appointment as a lab attendant and subsequent promotion as a junior clerk were both approved by the District Education Officer.
• The appellant contended that he was in constant communication with the respondent-Institution regarding his case.
• He argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned to allow him to challenge the termination orders.

Respondent-Management’s Submissions:

• The respondent-Management challenged the condonation of delay by the School Tribunal.
• They argued that the High Court was correct in setting aside the Tribunal’s order.

State’s Submissions:

• The State did not take a specific position but presented arguments on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the School Tribunal which condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court did not explicitly refer to any specific case laws or books. The main authorities considered were the orders of the District Education Officer approving the appellant’s appointment and promotion. The Court also considered the continuous correspondence between the appellant and the respondent-Institution.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The orders of the District Education Officer dated 06.03.1999 and 15.10.2012 were considered crucial in establishing the validity of the appellant’s appointment and promotion.
• The continuous correspondence between the appellant and the respondent-Institution was viewed as evidence of the appellant’s diligence and a valid reason for condoning the delay.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the appellant had a fair opportunity to challenge his termination orders. The Court emphasized the fact that the appellant’s initial appointment and subsequent promotion were duly approved by the District Education Officer. The continuous communication between the appellant and the respondent-institution also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to condone the delay. The Court was inclined to give an opportunity to the appellant to present his case on merits before the School Tribunal.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the appellant’s case deserved to be heard on merits. The Court noted that the appellant’s appointment as a lab attendant and his promotion as a junior clerk were duly approved by the District Education Officer. The Court also observed that the appellant was in continuous correspondence with the respondent-Institution between 31.11.2013 and 04.11.2016. The Court stated:

“Considering the submissions of Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and also facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the delay in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal has to be condoned to enable the appellant to challenge the order of termination dated 01.12.2016 and also the oral order of termination dated 30.11.2013.”

The Court emphasized the need to grant the appellant an opportunity to challenge the termination orders, stating:

“Such an opportunity is to be granted to the appellant as his appointment as lab attendant and also his promotion as junior clerk were duly approved by the District Education Officer.”

The Court further noted the potential hardship to the appellant if not given the opportunity to challenge the termination:

“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 by the respondent-Institution or otherwise the appellant will be subjected to great hardship.”

Key Takeaways

• Delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if a satisfactory explanation is provided.
• Approved appointments and promotions by the Education Officer are significant factors in service-related disputes.
• Continuous communication with the institution can be a valid reason for condoning delay.
• The Supreme Court prioritizes providing an opportunity for parties to be heard on merits.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the appeals pending before the School Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to provide sufficient opportunity to both parties and dispose of the appeals expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if the appellant provides a satisfactory explanation, particularly when the appellant’s appointment and promotion were duly approved by the relevant authority and when the appellant was in continuous communication with the respondent-Institution. This case reinforces the principle that courts should be inclined to provide an opportunity for parties to be heard on merits, especially in service-related matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the appeals before the School Tribunal. The Court emphasized the importance of providing the appellant with an opportunity to challenge his termination orders, given his approved appointment and promotion and his continuous communication with the institution. This judgment underscores the principle that delays can be condoned if there is a reasonable explanation, ensuring that cases are decided on their merits.