B. Lakshmi Bai and ors. Vs. Apsrtc 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.....ordert. meena kumari, j.1. this writ petition has been filed seeking declaration of the proceedings of the second respondent in no. e2/255 (18)/2002-rm 'a' kurnool regoin dated 14-12-2002 insofar as recategorizing the petitioners from attenders to shramiks as illegal, arbitrary and violative of section 9-a of the industrial disputes act.2. the main grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent by his office order dated 14-11-2002 has recategorized the posts of sweepers/attenders as shramiks and thereby there was change in the conditions of service even though there is no change in the pay scales. however, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not file any material to show that service conditions have been changed.3. it is to be seen that the second respondent pursuant to the board resolution dated 14-11-2002 have issued the proceedings in office order no. e2/255 (18)/ 2002-rm 'q' recategorising the posts of attenders/sweepers as sramiks and it was also stated that the excess sweepers/ attenders will be accommodated in the vacancies of shramiks. it is relevant to be noted that in the above office order dated 14-11-2002, it has been mentioned that the seniority of the sweepers/attenders will continue to be maintained in their parent category.4. under the above circumstances and in view of the fact that the petitioners did not file any material to show that by virtue of recategorization the pay and service conditions of the petitioners will be changed, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. no costs.