Abdul Aziz and Others Vs. District Judge, Rampur and Anothers

.....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..........the decree was not binding on them inasmuch as they were not parties to the suit and that the decree was not executable against them as they were the bona fide transferees for value. the objection of the petitioners was turned down by the executing court by means of its order and judgment dated 18th january, 1985. the petitioners took up the matter before the district judge, rampur in revision. the revision was dismissed by means of the order and judgment dated 27th april, 1985 and the order of the executing court rejecting the objection of the petitioners was upheld.4. relying upon the doctrine of lis pen-dens the courts below have held that the petitioners were as much bound by the decree and judgment dated 16th august, 1973 as their transferor abdul habib, the judgment-debtor. the view taken by the courts below is sound. lis comes into existence from the point of the institution of the suit and continues to survive till the satisfaction of the decree. in view of this legal position, the impugned orders and judgments do not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its special and extraordinary jurisdiction under art. 226 of the constitution of india.5. in the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.6. petition dismissed.