Viraj Constructions Vs. P. Pandu

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........act, 1956 (for short 'the act'), at rs.10,000/- and paid court-fees thereon. the lower court was of the opinion that the relief has to be valued at more than rs.1 lakh and so, it returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court.4. under section 26(c) of the act, the fees shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the court, whichever is higher. undoubtedly, the court has power to revise the valuation made by the plaintiff and value the relief as it thinks fit and proper. section 11(1)(a) of the act provides that in every suit, the court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials furnished by the plaintiff, the proper fee payable thereon.section 11(1)(b) of the act provides that the decision of the court regarding the proper fee payable, shall be subject to review from time to time as occasion requires. it is the settled position that the relief of injunction under section 26(c) of the act has to be valued on the basis of the advantage sought to be derived or the loss to be averted by the plaintiff. sec: jabbar v. state of a.p., 1969 (1) an.wr 411, and a.p.s. elec. board v. k.r. reddy, : air 1977 ap200 . in k. ramamurthy v. e.o., panchayat raj, : 1996(1)alt924 , it is held that in a suit for injunction, the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee are one and the same and that in a suit for mere injunction, the proper method for valuing the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is to value the suit for the purpose of court fee first and to treat that value for the purpose of jurisdiction but not vice versa. it is further held that in a suit for injunction the notional value given by the plaintiff at his option for the relief sought is the criterion, which is subject to revision by the court.5. i am satisfied that in the light of the principles enunciated above, the impugned.....