act no. xii of 1881 (n.w.p. rent act), section 93, 95 - act no. xix of 1873 (n.w.p. land revenue act), section 102--jurisdiction--civil and revenue courts--suit to ejectas a trespasser a person who claimed to be entitled to the holding of a deceased occupancy tenant--res judicata. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private 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.....knox and blair, jj.1. the point which has been contended, and very earnestly contended, before us by the learned vakil for the appellant, is whether the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is, or is not, one governed by the precedent of subarni v. bhagwan khan (1896) i.l.r. 19 all. 101.2. we agree with our brother banerji that the present suit was not one governed by that precedent. in the present suit the application originally made to the revenue courts was an application on plain paper, headed and marked as being one under section 102 of act no. xix of 1873. no person was cited as a defendant: all that the application stated was, that the applicant had been in joint occupancy of an occupancy holding together with the deceased; that he had succeeded to the holding, and was in possession of it; that the patwari had wrongly refused to report the case for mutation of names, and prayed that mutation of names might be effected in his favour. there was, as is usual in these cases, a fringe of irrelevant matter tending to obscure the point in issue. the revenue court, however, dealt with it as an application under section 102, and passed its order under section 102. there was not, as in the case of subarni v. bhagwan khan any request to be put in possession of the occupancy holding: the law has not made any provision, as the learned vakil rightly admitted, whereby orders passed under section 102 of act no. xix of 1873 can be treated as judgments of a civil court. the case before us differs thus toto coelo from the case of subarni v. bhagwan khan.3. we dismiss this appeal with costs.