act no. xlv of 1860, (indian penal code), section 366 - kidnapping--taking out of custody. - 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 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.....george knox, j.1. musammat jasauli has been convicted of an offence under section 366, indian penal code, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. she has sent in a petition of appeal from jail and has been represented in this court by learned counsel. it is contended on her behalf that nothing more is established against her beyond this--that the two girls, dhanauli and gidauli, both of them under sixteen years of age, were wandering about and found their way to the village where musammat jasauli lives--both girls admit that they had run away from their houses--and that they remained nearly one or two days in musammat jasauli's house; and that these facts are not enough to bring the musammat within the four corners of section 366 and do not justify the sentence passed; at the outside the offence is merely a technical offence. i have considered all these points, also the evidence on the record and i consider that the view taken by the learned sessions judge is justified by the evidence on the record. i have been referred to the case bf queen v. gunder singh (1865) 5 w.r. cr. r. 6. with every respect to the learned judges who decided that case, i find myself unable to agree with the view they took; there is the further element in this case that musammat jasauli belongs to the well-known caste of naiks in kumaun. i cannot think that she took these two girls out of charity. she made no report to the padhan or the patwari. i dismiss the appeal.