Ghuriya and ors. Vs. Baneswar 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..........the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the district judge who held that the possession of the zamindar was in collusion with the ostensible lessee, his karinda, who was not the real lessee of the plot. he held that the zamindar himself was the real lessee and that his karinda was a mere benamidar. on this finding he naturally decreed the suit.5. on an appeal by the defendant to this court, a learned judge of this court has allowed the appeal and directed that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court inasmuch as in his opinion no appeal lay to the district judge. the view taken by the learned judge was that in a case of this kind no question of proprietary title was raised.6. this view is in direct conflict with the pronouncement of the full bench in the case of bindesri pande v. gokul (1914) 36 all. 183, which apparently was not cited before the learned judge. the ease is on all fours with the case decided by the full bench andcannot be distinguished.7. we accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the order of the learned. judge of this court restore the decree of the lower appellate court with costs.