B. Brij Gopal Vs. Mt. Dhapi Bai

.....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.....mukerji, j.1. this is an appeal against an order appointing mt. dhapi bai the respondent as guardian of the person and property of her minor son babu suraj karan. the appellant, according to the pedigree given to us by his learned counsel is five degrees distant from the minor's father. the appellant's grandfather and the minor's grandfather were brothers. the application was based by the appellant on the ground that the family of the parties was joint and no appointment of guardian could be made in law in a joint hindu family.2. the district judge has not decided whether the family is joint or separate. he has taken his stand on the fact that a litigation is going on between suraj karan on the one hand and the appellant brij gopal on the other in which the question of separation or jointness of suraj karan's late father jaur mal is in dispute. jaur mal has, it appears, executed a will and brij gopal's contention is that as a member of a joint hindu family, jaur malf could not execute any will so as to dispose of the family property. in this litigation, the minor's mother dhapi bai represents the minor.3. the circumstances disclosed sufficiently justify the appointment of mt. dhapi bai as the guardian of the person and property of suraj karan. mt. dhapi bai has been found by the learned district judge to be a fit and proper person for looking after her minor son and managing the property. nothing has been said against this view of the learned judge. as a result, we dismiss this appeal with costs.