Basdeo Vs. Ulfat Rai 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.....henry richards, c.j. and banerji, j.1. we are not prepared to endorse as a matter of law that the defendants became under the circumstances exproprietary tenants by reason of being in possession of the property. we are inclined to think that the defendants acquired an absolute title to the property. they have admittedly been in possession ever since the year 1891 and such possession has been without any title. this prima facie would give the defendants an absolute title by adverse possession and it would be upon the persons who were entitled to possession to explain and show that the possession of the defendants was not adverse. the learned judge of this court says : 'my own opinion is that the appellant in the present case must be held to have acquired the status of an exproprietary tenant by adverse possession for twelve years and more.' we do not think that a person can acquire the 'status' of an exproprietary tenant by adverse possession. true it is that a lease-hold or an exproprietary interest can be acquired by adverse possession as against the person who is the lessee or the exproprietary tenant. but we do not think that where there never has been a lessee or exproprietary tenant that it is possible to become such by adverse possession. the respondents have filed no objection to the decision and have not claimed to be proprietors, and therefore we cannot interfere with the decree of this court. the result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.