Regional Manager, Apsrtc and ors. Vs. N.B. Venkaiah and ors.

.....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.....g. bikshapathy, j.1. the writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single judge in w.p. no. 20965 of 2003 dated 6-8-2004.2. the matter relates to the stagnation increments to the employees in apsrtc.3. the unofficial respondents claimed stagnation increments on the ground that they had completed 12 years of service and therefore they are entitled for the same in pursuance of the settlement entered between the management and the union.4. the learned single judge allowed the writ petition basing on the judgment of a division bench of this court in writ appeal no. 1301 of 2000, dated 29-10-2002 and it is also brought to the notice of this court that against the order of the division bench the matter was carried before the supreme court in slp and the supreme court dismissed the said slp.5. now the learned standing counsel appearing for apsrtc submits that as the clarificatory circular dated 9-11-1989 in proceeding no. p1/98(12)/87-pd was not placed either before the division bench or the single judge, and hence the matter has to be heard afresh.6. we are afraid we cannot accept the contention raised by the learned standing counsel. the benefit claimed by the petitioners is on the basis of the settlement entered into between the union and the management and the division bench has categorically held that the completion of 12 years service is the sine qua non for releasing the stagnation increments irrespective of change of division.7. under those circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single judge. the appeal is devoid of merits.8. accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. no costs.