Sheo Prasad Vs. Sheo Bans Rai

.....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.....daniels, j.1. this is an appeal under section 476-b of the code of criminal procedure against an order refusing to file a complaint under section 195 of the same code. the question is whether limitation is sixty days under article 155 or ninety days under article 156 of the limitation act. when the exact terms of article 155 are looked at the question raised does not admit of doubt. article 155 applies to any appeal to the high court under the code of criminal procedure except appeals from a sentence of death or an order of acquittal. this is clearly an appeal under the code of criminal procedure as the right of appeal is expressly conferred by section 476-b of that code. the article applicable is therefore 155 and the appeal is beyond time. as some misapprehension appears to have existed on this point and the counsel who presented the application states that he has himself been hitherto under the impression that limitation was ninety days, i allow him a week within which to file an application under section 5 of the limitation act supported by an affidavit.