Savitribai Fule Shikshan Prasarak ... vs Dhananjay Deoraoji Diwate And Ors. on 13 October, 2003
4. Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, on the contrary, submits that the learned Presiding Officer has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner's services were terminated vide notice dated 30th March, 1996. The said notice was received on the same date. He submits that the said notice of one month came into effect on 30th April, 1996 and as such the appeal ought to have been filed within a period of one month thereof. He submitted that the petitioner could not have been permitted to challenge the imaginary termination dated 8-7-1996. He submits that the learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Relying on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Savitribai Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wardha and Anr. v. Dhananjay Deoraoji Diwate and Ors. reported in 2004(3) Mh. L.J. 18, he submits that since the petitioner has not challenged the termination which came into effect on 30th April, 1996, the appeal itself was not tenable. He further submits that since the respondent-management had taken a specific objection regarding the appeal being filed beyond the period of limitation, an opportunity was available to the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay. He submits that the petitioner having not availed of the said opportunity, cannot be heard to raise the grievance in the present petition.