Madho Das Vs. Kamta Das

.....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.....spankie, j.1. who, after stating the facts, continued: with reference to former precedents of the late sudder dewanny adawlut of those provinces, we cannot say that the subordinate judge was in error in dismissing both claims for the reasons assigned by him, since it was not for him to make out a title which neither plaintiff alleged for himself as his ground of action. but he was right in noticing the defect, because it had been pleaded by the defendant in appeal.2. it has been laid down by the late sudder dewanny adawlut in nirunjun barthee v. padaruth barthee s.d.a. n.w.p. 1864 vol. i 512 that amongst the general tribe of fakirs called saniasis (and the plaintiffs here appear to be of the description) a right of inheritance strictly so speaking to the property of a deceased guru or spiritual preceptor does not exist; but the right of succession depends upon the nomination of one amongst his disciples by the deceased guru in his own lifetime, which nomination is generally confirmed by the mahants of the neighbourhood assembled together for the purpose of performing the funeral obsequies of the deceased. where no nomination has been made the succession is elective, the mahants and the principal persons of the sect in the neighbourhood choosing from amongst the disciples of the deceased guru the one who may appear to be the most qualified to be his successor, installing him then and there on the occasion of performing the funeral ceremonies of the late guru.3. neither plaintiff avers that he was nominated by the deceased paras ram during his life and confirmed afterwards, nor does either assert that in consequence of paras ram's omission to nominate a successor, he had been elected after the litter's death by the neighbouring mahants and members of the sect; but both plaintiffs have based their claim on inheritance and discipleship, which would not be sufficient to establish a right of succession. we therefore dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower.....