.....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.....w. comer petheram, c.j.1. we think that this appeal must be dismissed. the question is, whether a transaction between certain insolvents, or persons who shortly afterwards were adjudicated insolvents, and one of their creditors, is void. the answer to this question depends on what are the proper inferences to be drawn from the facts. the facts are, that on the 12th march the insolvents suspended payment. on the night of the previous day, the 11th march, the creditor, the impending bankruptcy of the insolvents having become known, urged the latter to make over a part of their stock-in-trade as security for the debt, and to this, the insolvents consented. now, was this a voluntary transfer? because if it were, it is void under section 24 of 11 and 12 vic, c. 21. all that appears is that on the 11th march security was demanded from the insolvents. there was no pressure which could not be resisted. there were no legal proceedings against the insolvents existing, nor could they have feared any, as they must have known that on the following day they would stop payment. under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the transfer was a voluntary one.