Judgment 1. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 9.1.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Latur by which order the application for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal before the School Tribunal came to be rejected. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the secondary school, run by the Respondent no.1 on 9.7.1981. The Petitioner was promoted as the Headmaster of the Respondent no.2 Manjulabai Kinhalkar Girls High School, Bhokar Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. It appears that the Education Officer vide his letter dated 17.7.1999 informed the management that as per Rule 3(4) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, a Headmistress is required to be appointed in a Girls High School and therefore, the approval granted to the Petitioner as Headmaster was cancelled and that the management should take steps to appoint a Headmistress as per seniority. This letter was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition no. 4040 of 1999 in which, interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was granted thereby protecting the services of the Petitioner as the Headmaster in the girls school. It appears that thereafter on 30.1.2003, the Petitioner tendered his resignation from the post of Headmaster and was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.2.2003. The Petitioner thereafter filed Contempt Petition no.166 of 2004, which came to be rejected by this Court by order dated 24.9.2004. This Court did not deem it fit to proceed against the Respondents in the said Contempt Petition in view of the resignation tendered by the Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner thereafter on 7.12.2004, filed an Appeal before the School Tribunal and since the Appeal was belated by 21 months, the Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. The justification given by the Petitioner for the said delay was that the Petitioner was prosecuting the said Writ Petition no. 4040 of 1999 and Contempt Petition no.166 of 2004. It was the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was bonafide prosecuting the said remedy by way of Contempt Petition and therefore the delay had occurred. The learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal considered the justification given by the Petitioner, and came to a conclusion that the Petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for condoning the said delay. It was the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was bonafide prosecuting the said remedy by way of Contempt Petition and therefore the delay had occurred. The learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal considered the justification given by the Petitioner, and came to a conclusion that the Petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for condoning the said delay. The Tribunal also considered the fact that the Petitioner was appointed as a Headmaster of a Girls school and that the Petitioner had of his own volition tendered his resignation and opted for the lower post of Assistant teacher. 4. Considering the reasons cited by the Petitioner, in my view, the reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner had filed Contempt Petition, which came to be dismissed on 24.9.2004, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not aware of the statutory remedy that was available to him under the MEPS Act against alleged forced resignation. Even after the dismissal of the Contempt Petition on 24.9.2004, the Petitioner filed the Appeal on 7.12.2004 i.e. almost after a gap of about 2-1/2 months. Beyond stating that the Petitioner was prosecuting the Contempt Petition, there is no other material on record, on the basis of which, indulgence can be shown to the Petitioner. 5. Though normally at the stage of condonation of delay, merits of the matter cannot be gone into, in view of the fact that the Petitioner was appointed as a Headmaster of a Girls school, which is not permissible as per Rule 3(4) as also the fact that the Petitioner had tendered his resignation in his own handwriting as also the fact that the Petitioner by letter dated 1.2.2003 had requested the management to permit him to join as Assistant teacher, as also the approval granted to the present incumbent as Headmaster and to the Petitioner as Assistant teacher on 6.3.2003, the aforesaid facts in my view are also relevant for the consideration of the issue of condonation of delay in the instant case. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1994 II CLR 984 in the matter of Maria Z. Concescio v. The Principal and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in AIR 1998 BOMBAY 231 in the matter of M/s. Savita Sadi Centre and others v. Bank of Baroda. The reliance placed on the said judgments, in the facts and circumstances of the present case is in my view misplaced. 6. Though it is well settled that a pedantic and technical approach should be eschewed whilst considering an application for condonation of delay, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my view, indulgence cannot be shown to the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, the order of the School Tribunal refusing to condone the delay of 21 months calls for no interference at the hands of this Court in it’s writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.