Tavva Obula Reddy and anr. Vs. Mulapaku Salamma and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 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 of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, 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. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 3. it was stated in the counter that the petitioners who have filed the suit for mere injunction cannot be permitted to seek the relief for declaration as well. it is for this rastha, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for injunction and now want a declaration of title to the same as well by the proposed amendment. as observed supra, as it is the stand taken in the written statement that the said rastha is gramanatham poramboke, the plaintiffs thought fit that it would be safe to seek the relief of declaration as well by contending that it is their absolute property as well.b.v. ranga raju, j.1. this civil revision petition is preferred against the order of the trial court dismissing an application filed under order-6, rule-17 of the civil procedure code to amend the plaint.2. according to the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was the stand taken in the written statement that the suit site is gramanatham poramboke and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction that necessitated the filing of the application to amend the plaint.3. it was stated in the counter that the petitioners who have filed the suit for mere injunction cannot be permitted to seek the relief for declaration as well. however, on reading of the plaint, it is seen that the plaintiffs have asserted that they are the absolute owners of the property and have been enjoying the property using the same as rastha. it may be so that they have not chosen to seek the relief for declaration of title; on the ground that in view of the threatened dispossession the suit for mere injunction would be sufficient as noted earlier, it is the stand that was taken in the written statement that the suit site is part of the gramanatham poramboke and that prompted the plaintiffs to come forward with the application to amend the suit for comprehensive relief.4. the trial court on appreciation of the rival contentions, stated that inasmuch as the petitioners/plaintiffs did not claim the said property as their exclusive property, they cannot be permitted to set up a new plea claiming the title thereto. it may be so that the plaintiffs have purchased the property mentioned as 'a j d e f g h' on 26-10-1988. so far as the allegation regarding the use of rastha to reach their land is concerned, it was averred in the plaint that they are enjoying the property and using the rastha without any objection. it is for this rastha, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for injunction and now want a declaration of title to the same as well by the proposed amendment. there is an assertion in the plaint that the plaintiffs have been using the rastha 'a h g c b' as noted in the plaint plan and the defendants with a mala fide intention are trying to occupy this site of an extent of five and half feet to cause obstruction to the plaintiffs. thus, while asserting their right to enter the house through the rastha, the plaintiffs would not have specifically averred as to how they became entitled to the rastha. as observed supra, as it is the stand taken in the written statement that the said rastha is gramanatham poramboke, the plaintiffs thought fit that it would be safe to seek the relief of declaration as well by contending that it is their absolute property as well. thus, in my opinion, the plaintiffs are not trying to bring out a new case or taken the defendants by surprise by introducing the amendment. the trial court has thus committed an error in approaching the point in issue.5. the civil revision petition is, therefore, allowed. the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. no costs.