Koppala Eshwar and anr. Vs. Chief Electoral Officer 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.....orderb. subhashan reddy, j.1. this writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 31-8-1999 passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that he is an employee of singareni collieries company limited.2. the said action was taken by the 2nd respondent on the complaint received by him that the petitioner is working in singareni collieries company limited and that the same is contrary to the declaration made by him in the nomination form that he is qualified and not disqualified to contest the election.3. one of the grounds in rule 33-a (c) of the representation of the people act read with article 191 of the constitution of india for ineligibility for contesting the elections is that the candidate should not hold an office of profit.4. mr. k. vasudeva reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioner, even though, is employed in singareni collieries company limited, singareni collieries company ltd, is only a company registered under the indian companies act and merely because the government has vast shares therein, it cannot be construed as a service in government. but, these are all questions of fact, which have to be gone into by the properly constituted election tribunal, as, one of the enumerated grounds for filing election petition is improper rejection of nomination.5. in the circuinstances, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. no costs.