.....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.....raghubar dayal, j.1. hamid khan appeals against his conviction under section 379/511 read with section 75, penal code, and a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. the conviction of the appellant under section 379/511, penal code is correct. the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment with the aid of section 75, penal code is, however, illegal.2. section 75, penal code, provides for enhanced punishment when a person is convicted of an offence punishable under chap. 12 or chap. 17, penal code, with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards. the offence of attempt to commit theft does not fall under chap. 17, penal code. it really falls under chap. 23 of the code. it follows, therefore, that section 75, penal code cannot apply to persons who are convicted for attempting to commit theft. a similar view has been taken in the cases reported in empress of india v. ram dayal ('81) 3 all. 773, queen-empress v. ajudhia ('95) 17 all. 120, queen-empress v. bharose ('95) 17 all. 123 and brij behari lal v. emperor : air1926 all44 .3. i, therefore, dismiss the appeal but modity the sentence to the effect that i reduce the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment passed by the court below to a sentence of one year and a half rigorous imprisonment, the maximum punishment permissible under the law for an offence under section 379/511, penal code.