act vii of 1870 (court fees act), sections 3 (c), 12 and schedule ii, article 17 (iii) - suit for a declaratory decree--consequential relief--decision of questions relating to valuation--appeal. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private 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.....1. it is contended by the respondents that the court is bound by the provisions of section 12 of the court fees act and cannot determine whether this suit is one in which specific relief is sought or not, so as to determine under what class of cases it falls for the purpose of the court fees act. we observe, and it has been so held in the calcutta court see ganga monee chowdhrain v. gopal chunder roy 19 w.r. 214 that section 12 of the court fees act prohibits appeals on questions 'relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of a fee.' there is no question of valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of a fee raised in the appeal before us, for if the appellant is right in his contention, a special and certain fee is fixed for all suits of the nature of the present suit, and no question of valuation arises. we therefore overrule the objection and entertain the appeal.2. it appears to us that the appellant correctly contends he seeks a declaration of right and no consequential relief. the civil procedure code declares that a person against whom an order is passed under section 246 may bring a suit to establish his right. if he obtains a decree in such a suit, he will then present himself to the court executing the decree by which the order was made, and that court will be bound to recognize the right declared, and either withdraw or order attachment as the case may be. we set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and remand the case to that court for decision on the merits. costs of this appeal to abide and follow the result.