Batchigari Subba Rao and anr. Vs. A. Amarnath 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..........of the minor petitioner herein, and marked, exs.a-1 to a-24. after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that she died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry after sustaining injuries and therefore, the tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 5,000/ - with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation.4. against this judgment and decree, the present c.m.a. is filed.5. by order dated 26-2-1998 of this court, the appeal against the first respondent herein, who is owner of the lorry involved in the accident, was dismissed. it is settled law that when the appeal against the owner of the lorry is dismissed, the insurance company, who stands to indemnify the amounts on behalf of the insured, cannot be made liable to pay the amounts which are going to be enhanced in the appeal; inasmuch as the insurer steps into the shoes of the insured by virtue of the contract. in a recent judgment of the apex court in oriental insurance company v. sunitha rathi, air 1998 sc 256, the issue with regard to the operation of the policy and cover note issued by the insurer came up for consideration. the supreme court held that the operation of the policy and cover note come into operation from the date mentioned in them and before that date, the court cannot fix the liability on the insurer, if any accident takes place prior to the date mentioned in the policy or cover note. accordingly it held that the liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured is upheld.6. therefore, in the present case, when the appeal is dismissed against the insured, the liability cannot be upheld against the insurer. following the above judgment of the supreme court, this c.m.a. is dismissed, in the circumstances without costs.