Rathod Hari Ram Vs. Apsrtc Through Depot Manager, Nirmal and anr.

.....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.....b.k. somasekhara, j.1. the appellant who is a police constable is said to have suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 13-3-1986 whereas he filed the claim petition under section 110-a of the mv act on 14-12-1988 along with an application i.a. 175/89 before the motor accident claims tribunal, adilabad for condonation of delay of 13 months. the reason for such a delay was said to be due to the appellant - claimant being undergoing treatment for serious injuries in the hospital for over one year. the tribunal after hearing both the sides did not agree with the claimant about the reason for the delay and therefore dismissed the claim petition as barred by limitation by dismissing the application for condonation of delay.2. the learned advocate for the appellant has contended that in a motor vehicle claim case the tribunal should be liberal in condoning the delay if plausible and possible reasons are afforded. the law in this regard also appears to be settled. in a motor vehicle case sufficient cause pleaded for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition should be liberally construed. (rama kishen v. u.p.s.r.t.c., 1994 supp. (2) scc 507, national insurance company v. swarnalatha das, : air 1993 sc1259 , basavaiah v. ashok kumar, 1985 (1) kan.l.j. 256 and krishna bai v. desur, 1981 acj 263). illiteracy, ignorance, desperation, prolonged, illness etc., are good grounds for condoning the delay. the victims of accidents not only suffer physically but also mentally and economically. possibly the compensation in money value may not be even reimbursed by any forum. however the appellant, a police constable, cannot be said to be totally ignorant of such rights. but when he could not approach the tribunal for such a long time, it must be presumed that but for compelling reasons he would not have failed to file the claim petition within the period of limitation. that itself lends assurance that he had a plausible explanation for the delay which he.....