.....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.....aikman, j.1. an order was issued to the applicants by a duly empowered magistrate, directing them under the provisions of section 133 of the code of criminal procedure to remove an unlawful obstruction from a road which wag said to be a public road, or to appear within a time fixed and move to have the order set aside. the applicants put in a petition, in which they denied that there ever was a road as asserted by the other side. had they adhered to this position, and had the magistrate, without considering whether the applicants' plea was or was not a bond fide claim of right, passed the order complained against, it would have been a case for interference in revision. but instead of adopting this course the applicants asked the magistrate to appoint a jury, that being the third alternative given by section 135 of the code. the magistrate nominated the two men named by the applicants, namely, bachu lal and ganesh prasad narain. he also appointed two men whose names were supplied by the opposite side, and he appointed as umpire one munshi nazir ali, manager of the dubari estate. four persons, including the umpire, agreed in finding that the order complained of was a reasonable and proper order. the fifth person did not for some reason join the jury, and did not concur in the verdict. amongst the four persons who agreed in finding that the magistrate's order was a reasonable and proper one were bachu lal and ganesh prasad narain, the two persons nominated by the applicants. i am asked to interfere in revision on the ground that there was a disputed question of title, and that therefore there was no jurisdiction to pass the order. on the facts set forth above i decline to do this and reject the application.