Puttu Singh and ors. Vs. Vidya Ram 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..........number and shall come up for hearing on 14th october 1932.3. as soon as the high court reopened on 11th october 1932 a petition was filed and an application was made to the court below to stay the hearing of the case as a revision had been filed. the learned subordinate judge acceded to this request and eventually received an order from this court not to hear the case till the revision had been decided. it has been argued for the respondents by mr. g.l. agarwala that the plaintiffs having accepted the costs awarded by the order of 12th july 1932 they are estopped from maintaining the application in revision. there is however nothing on the record to show that the costs were taken by the plaintiffs' pleader in token of acceptance of the (validity of the order. on the other hand, we find from the plaintiffs' conduct, namely that they filed their application in revision as soon as the high court reopened, and that they never proposed to acquiesce in the order for setting aside the ex parte decree. as the defendants' application has not been properly considered we set aside the orders of 12th july 1932 and 14th october 1932 and send back the case to the learned subordinate judge to be decided in accordance with the law. costs here and hitherto will abide the result.