Bansi Dhar and ors. Vs. Sampat Kumar Singh 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..........money.3. the reference of the question mentioned above for the decision of this bench was rendered necessary by the judgment of their lordships of the privy council reported as dayal singh v. indar singh a.i.r. 1926 p.c. 94.4. on the 13th december 1926, when the case first came up before the present bench, the hearing was adjourned in view of impending legislation and since then there has been passed the indian registration (amendment) act, 1927 (act 2 of 1927) which has come into force from the 18th february 1927, by this act there has been added to section 17, sub-section (2) of the indian registration act, 1908, the following explanation:explanation-a document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.5. the document of the 1st september 1918 with which we are now concerned is a document of the description given in the above explanation, and it follows, therefore, that in virtue of this new enactment it did not require to be registered.6. with this answer to the question submitted for decision the record is returned to the bench concerned.walsh, sulaiman, mukerji, banerji, ashworth and iqbal ahmad jj:7. we agree.