.....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.....pearson, j.1. the claim in this suit was simply for the recovery of the minor, chittan, from the custody of the government; and the fact that the plaintiff is a prostitute, and therefore an unfit person to have the charge of the girl, seems to be a sufficient reason for dismissing the claim in the interest of the minor. it may be admitted that the plaintiff would, under the muhammadan law, be prima facie entitled to the guardianship of her younger sister, were her fitness for the charge established; but her own bad character and manner of life must be hold to disqualify her; and we must affirm the decree of the lower courts dismissing her suit. it is stated in the plaint that the tenets of christianity are being imparted to the minor at the orphanage at which she has been placed by the magistrate, and that 'in bringing her claim, the plaintiff prays that the court, after satisfying itself that the plaintiff would not bring up the minor in her own trade of prostitution, and that she would marry her according to muhammadan law, may order the minor to be given to her.' but it is difficult to see how the minor, if made over to her, could be secured from the evil effects of her example, influence, and association the appeal is dismissed with costs.