Emperor Vs. Nandu and ors.

.....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..........to have been committed in kamptee, which is a native state. objection was ' taken at the hearing of the case that gambling was not shown to be an offence in the native state in question, and, secondly, that the requirements of the proviso to section 188 of the code of criminal procedure had not been satisfied. that proviso sets out that ' when a native indian subject of his majesty commits an offence in the territories of any native prince or chief in india, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within british india at which he may be found. provided that no charge as to any such offence shall be inquired into in british india, unless the political agent, if there is one in the territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, certifies that in his opinion the charge ought to be inquired into in british india; and, where there is no political agent, the sanction of the local government shall be required. ' the learned magistrate has dealt in a light and airy fashion with these legal objections. even if the applicants could be convicted of an offence of gambling in the native state in question, they cannot be proceeded against in the absence of the certificate or the sanction set out in the proviso to section 188 of the code of criminal procedure. the magistrate who tried the case says: 'a few months ago under the instructions of the political agent a committee was constituted of some members of the native state concerned and some members of the executive authorities in british india, and it was mutually agreed for convenience that british indian police might arrest persons found gambling in the native state and try them in british india, if they were british indian subjects, and send them to the native states, if they were subjects thereof, and vice versa, the native state police could arrest persons found gambling in british india.' an agreement like this cannot take the place of the.....