In Re: an Advocate

.....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.....1. mr. a who was enrolled as a pleader in the allahabad district court for the year 1923 has been practising since then in the courts of the benares state and now applies to be enrolled as an advocate of this high court. his ground is that the benares state chief court is almost equivalent to a high court.2. the bar council has raised an objection on the ground that the chief court of the benares state is not a high court and mr. a cannot be treated as having practised in any high court and is therefore not entitled to be enrolled as an advocate of this high court.3. in our opinion the objection raised is sound. under bar council rule 1 an applicant must either have practised in one or more of the courts subordinate to this high court for a period of not less than one year or undergone training in the chambers of a senior member whose name appears on a list approved by this high court or he must be an advocate of any other 'high court' of not less than two years standing. it is quite clear that mr. anandi prasad has not been practising in any court subordinate to this high court nor has he undergone the requisite training. it is equally clear that the benares state chief court cannot be recognized as a chartered high court which is referred to in the rules and his practice in such court cannot be counted. the application is accordingly rejected.