Skinner Vs. Orde and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
act viii of 1859, section 308 - pauper suit--institution of suit--presentation of plaint--limitions. - 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]. - if the suit can he held to have been instituted on the 21st february 1873, the date on which the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was first presented to the subordinate judge of meerut, it is clearly within time; hut that application never was granted, and was indeed virtually withdrawn on the 27th november 1874, by the plaintiff's offer to pay the amount of the fee chargeable on the plaint under the court fees act before the inquiry into his pauperism bad been concluded, and his application was not numbered and registered and assumed to be the plaint in the suit under the provisions of section 308, act vi if of 1809, in consequence of proof of his pauperism, hut in consequence of the payment by him of the proper fees.1. the cause of action in this suit accrued to the plaintiff in august 1861, when his father died; and the period during which the suit might legally ho brought is 12 years. if the suit can he held to have been instituted on the 21st february 1873, the date on which the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was first presented to the subordinate judge of meerut, it is clearly within time; and there can be no doubt that, had the application of the 21st february 1878, been granted, the suit would rightly he deemed to have been instituted on that date. hut that application never was granted, and was indeed virtually withdrawn on the 27th november 1874, by the plaintiff's offer to pay the amount of the fee chargeable on the plaint under the court fees act before the inquiry into his pauperism bad been concluded, and his application was not numbered and registered and assumed to be the plaint in the suit under the provisions of section 308, act vi if of 1809, in consequence of proof of his pauperism, hut in consequence of the payment by him of the proper fees. but there is no provision in the law which allows the application presented under section 299 of the code to be doomed the plaint in the suit when such application has been in effect revoked and superseded by the payment of the ides chargeable under the court fees act. in such a case; we conceive that the date of the presentation of the plaint and institution of the suit must he taken to he the date of the payment of the fees: and we are therefore unable to rule that the lower court has erred in declaring the present suit to have been instituted after the lapse of the period allowed by the law. we have no alternative hut to dismiss the appeal with costs.