Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.05 seconds)Section 9 in Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965
Section 2 in The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Pannalal Binjraj And Another vs The Union Of India And Others. (And Other ... on 21 December, 1956
8. The view that I am taking is clearly fortified by two decisions of this Court, one by the Single Judge and another by the Division Bench. The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3583 of 1999 decided on 13th August, 1999, after taking into consideration the various definitions of various expressions used in the Act, and considering the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Pannalal Binjraj and others v. Union of India and others, , held that the Tribunal constituted under the said Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from an employee of Ashram School as such school does not constitute a private school within the meaning of the said expression under the said Act. Similarly the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2919/1991, after considering the fact that the institute was neither recognised by the Director or the Divisional Board or State Board or any other authorised officer by him or by any of such other Boards as is otherwise required in terms of section 2(21) of the said Act, nor the recognition of the school was by the officer who is covered by the definition "director" in section 2(6) of the said Act and that therefore, the institution, in which the petitioner therein was employed, was not a private school within the meaning of the said expression under section 2(20) of the said Act and therefore, held that the appeal preferred by the petitioner therein under section 9 was not maintainable.