In Re: an Advocate

.....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.....1. mr. shushil chandra chaturvedi of firozabad is already on the roll of vakils but is actually engaged in trade and has suspended his practice. he applies to be enrolled as an advocate of this high court. the bar council recommends that his application may be refused but he should be allowed to apply afresh when he disassociates himself from the business.2. there can be no question that the high court has power to refuse admission to any person at its discretion. this is so even if there are rules to the contrary, vide proviso to section 9 of act 38 of 1926. we think that weight should be attached to the recommendation of the bar council which represents the views of the legal profession. we accordingly refuse this application for the time being giving him liberty to revive his application after he has ceased to carry on trade.3. there is no order as to costs.