King-emperor Vs. Munna

.....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..........for security. in the referring letter of the learned sessions judge the question is raised as to whether the district magistrate, after instituting proceedings under section 107(2), had any power to transfer the case. this question is not altogether free from difficulty. but after consideration, i am of opinion that the intention of the legislature was to limit the jurisdiction in regard to institution of proceedings in cases like the present to a chief presidency or district magistrate; but that when such magistrate has, in the exercise of his discretion, directed institution of proceedings, there is nothing in the law to prevent him from transferring the case to a magistrate otherwise qualified to complete the proceedings. in this case it appears that a previous application for revision had been made to the district magistrate. the learned sessions judge ought therefore, with reference to the provisions of section 435, sub-section (4), to have referred the applicant to this court. as, however, the proceeding has came to my knowledge, i have dealt with it under section 439, sub-section (1) of the code of criminal procedure. for the reasons set forth above i am of opinion that the magistrate of the first class had jurisdiction to make the order which he did, and i direct that the record be returned.