Kuber Rai Vs. Shyam NaraIn Rai

.....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..........suit. the argument in second appeal has been based upon the contention that the stones do not represent the true boundary. there is no explanation of the existence of the stones or at least two of them except that they are supposed to represent the boundary between the land of the two villages. it seems to me that the argument of the appellants is based on an assumption which is not justified, namely, that the map of the locality is so accurate that it can be relied upon with greater assurance than the locality itself. there is in fact a great possibility of error in arguments based on measurements. in the first place, the measurements on which the original map was based may not have been accurate within certain limits. in the second place, the map itself may not have been quite accurate in accordance with the measurements. in the third place, when the locality is to be re-measured there is again a possibility of mistake in the measurements and in taking the distances in accordance with the scale of the original map. in my judgment it is much safer to rely upon the actual boundary pillars which exist upon the plot than to base a conclusion upon a map made at the settlement and subsequent measurements made at the present time to show that the pillars are not the real boundary between the two villages. the learned munsif himself, who passed a decree in favour of the appellants, has found that these boundary pillars were for all practical purposes treated as the boundary between the two villages and had been apparently for a considerable time. i see no reason to differ from the learned judge of the lower appellate court and i dismiss the appeal with costs. leave to appeal is refused.