G. Ramulu Vs. Deport Manager, Apsrtc, Gadwal Depot and Another

.....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.....orderp. venkatarama reddi, acj 1. the learned single judge rejected the writ petition in limini on the representation made by the learned counsel for the appellant that he would prefer an appeal against the impugned order of removal. the learned counsel now urges that in view of the judgment of the division bench of this court in t.s.p. rao v. apsrtc (wa no. 102 of 1996, dated 26-2-1996), the punishment cannot be sustained as there was denial of reasonable opportunity inasmuch as the enquiry report was not served before issuing the show cause notice proposing punishment. we cannot accept this contention. in that case, a copy of enquiry report was not served at all. it is not the ratio of the decision that in point of time, the copy of the enquiry report must first be served and thereafter only, the show cause notice proposing the punishment should be issued. the requirement of furnishing enquiry reportcannot be viewed as a retual, the idea being to enable the employee to make an effective representation with reference to the findings in the enquiry report and also with reference to the proposed punishment. no prejudice is caused to the appellant on account of the enquiry report being served alongwith the show-cause notice.2. we therefore, see no merit in the writ appeal. the writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.