Supreme Court of India
P.S. RAMAMOHANA RAOversusA.P. AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 586
- Decided
- 31 July 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SUJATA V MANOHAR
Holding
A Physical Director falls within the definition of "teacher" under Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963, and therefore the superannuation age of 60 years under Regulation 33 applies.
Summary
P.S. Ramamohana Rao, employed as Physical Director at Bapatla Agricultural College and later transferred to Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, was ordered to retire at age 58. He challenged the order, contending that under Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963 a Physical Director is a "teacher" and therefore entitled to the superannuation age of 60 years prescribed by Regulation 33. The High Court rejected this view, holding that the role did not fall within the definition of teacher. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the duties of a Physical Director, relevant statutory definitions, and several administrative communications that classified Physical Directors as teachers. The Court held that the Physical Director’s responsibilities of teaching skills, rules, and techniques of games place him within the main part of the definition of teacher, making the 60‑year retirement age applicable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the appellant was awarded emoluments up to the age of 60 and retirement benefits based on that age.
Issues considered
- Whether a Physical Director is covered by the definition of "teacher" in Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963.
- Whether the superannuation age of 60 years under Regulation 33 applies to a Physical Director classified as a teacher.
- Whether the High Court erred in interpreting the statutory definition and the applicable regulations.
Subjects
teacher definitionsuperannuation agephysical education directorservice lawstatutory interpretationretirement ageAndhra Pradesh Agricultural University
Judgment
P.S. RAMAMOHANA RAO A
v.
A.P. AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ANR.
:::l JULY 31, 1997
B
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]
Service Matter-Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963-Teacher-Superan~
nuation age-College where petitioner worked was transferred to the A.P.
University as per S.43 of the Act-Petitioner who was a physical Director is
also a teacher within the.meaning of S.2(n}-Hence under Regulations 3 & c
33 his age of Superannuation is 60 and not 58.
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order retiring him
at the age of 58 contending that he was a 'teacher' within the meaning of
S.2(n) of the Act and as per the Regulations governing the service condi·
D
tions, he was entitled to work till 60 years of age. The High Court dismissed
the Petition holding that Physical Director does not fall under the defini·
tion of teacher in S.2 (n); that though paid the same scales of pay
applicable to teaching staff, it does not give him the status of a teacher;
and there is no discrimination in retiring_ him at 58. On appeal, the
appellant reiterated his contentions to which the respondents contended E
that there was no regular curriculum or syllabus nor credits for physical
education and therefore the post was not that of a 'teacher'.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : 1. The definition does. not say what the word 'teacher' means
but includes certain categories within the meaning of the said word. neither
the Ad nor the rules & regulations specify the duties and functions of a
Physical Director. From the affidavit, it is clear that a Physical Director
has multifarious duties. He not only arranges game and sports for the
students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material G
-:. and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and
inter-college tournaments and accompanys the students team when they
go for the inter-University tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his
important duties to guide them about the rules of the various games and
sports. It is well known that different games and sports have different rules H
201
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A and practices and unless the students are guided about the said rules and
practices they will not be able to play the games and participate in the
sports in a proper manner. Further, it is inherent in the duties of a ;
Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and
techniques of these games and s:>orts. There are large number of indoor
B and outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore,
he has to teach the several skill and techniques of these games apart from
the rules applicable to these games. Having regard to the above-stated, the
Court is clearly of the view that the appellant comes within the definition
of teacher in sub-clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act. Regulation 33 (as
amended on 27.4.1976) of the Regulations deals with the presumption of
C the age of superannuation . It is clear that the age of retirement of teachers
is 60 years and for other employees it is 58 years while the age of Class IV
employees is 60 years. It is, therefore, clear that if the appellant is a
teacher, he will come under sub-clause (a) of Regulation 33 and is entitled
to be continued till he completes 60 years. It is declared that appellant was
D entitled to continue in service till he completed 60 years of age.
[206·G·H; 207-A-C; 206-8-C; 210-D]
2. The Secretary to the University Grants Commission in a letter
dated 7.1.1959 addressed to the Registrar, Agricultural University in con·
E nection with upgrading the scale of Physical Directors referred to the
minimum qualifications required for an appointment of a physical Direc·
tor and in the said letter described physical Directors as.'teachers'. In fact,
it is clear that while counting the percentages of teachers, Physical Direc·
tors have also been counted. There is a memorandum of the Joint
Registrar of the said University dated 29.7.1966 which clearly admitted
F that Physical Director comes within the category of teachers. In connection
with the Physical Directors working in Degree colleges and Junior colleges
the Education department of the Andhra Pradesh Government has issued
proceedings dated 29.11.1976 and in the said proceedings Physical direc·
tors have been described as teachers, for the purpose of application of the
G Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service. In regard to the pay scales of
Physical Directors in Degree colleges in the State, the Govemmen_t of
Andhra Pradesh had issued proceedings dated 20.4.1987 designation
physical Education Directors as Lecturers in Physical Education. The
above said communications of the University Grants Commission and of
H the Joint Registrar of the respondent University and of the state Govern·
ment support this view. [207-D-E; 208-D-H; 209-A]
P.S.R. RAO v. A.P. AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY (M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 203
3. It may be that Physieal Director gives his guidance or teaching to A
the students only in 'the evening after the regular classes are over. it may
also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical
and practical classes for the students so ·far as physical education is
concerned: But, among various duties of the Physical Director, expressly
or otherwise are included the duty to teach the skills of various games as B
well as their rules and practices.. The said duties bring him clearly within
the main part of the definition of 'teacher'. [210-B-C]
4. The High Court did not go into the meaning of the word 'teacher'
in the main part of the clause nor assess correctly the effect of the material
evidence on record. Physical Directors come within the main part of the C
. definition of teacher, and it is not necessary that they should be separately
. recognised as teachers by an order or statute of the University. [209-D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 898 of
1992
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.89 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 12751of1988.
L.N. Rao,.G.R.K. Prasad 'and V. Sridhar for Ms. Vrinda ·Dhar for
the Appellant.
E
T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. This appeal has been preferred against
the ju~gment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ Petition No. 12751 ·p
of 19S8 dated 28.4.1989 by which a Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the writ Petition filed by the appellant. The question that falls
for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to be
continued in service of the A.P. Agricultural University as a Director of
Physical Education till he completed 60 years or whether he was liable to
superannuate after completion of 58 years? G
The brief facts of the case are as follows :
The appellant was initially employed as Physical Director in the
Bapatla Agricultural College which is a Government college, w.e.f. 4th
August, 1956. The Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University was formed ; H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A under Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963 (hereinafter called the act') and
the abovesaid college stood transferred to the said University by virtue of
Section 43 of the said Act w.e.f. 4th· May, 1964. The services of the
appellant, therefore, stood transferred to the Agricultural University ac-
cordingly and the appellant continued to work as Physical Director in the
B said University. When the appellant was about to complete 58 years, the
respondent University sought to retire him on the completion of 58 years.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and initially obtained
an order of Stay. By virtue thereof he continued for sometime as Physical .
Director beyond 58 years but subsequently the stay was vacated. According
to the appellant the respondent was not right in contending that the age of
C superannuation for Physical Directors in the University is 58 years. He
contends that he is entitled to continued till he completed 60 years as he
is also a 'teacher' within the meaning of the said words in Section 2(n) of
the Act. Now that the appellant has retired, the decision in this case will
be relevant only for the purpose of grant of emoluments for the period
D after the vacation of the stay and before the completion of 60 years also
for the purpose of computing his retiral benefits.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended by virtue of the defini-
tion of teachers in section 2(n) read along with the material available on
record, the appellant came within the main part of the definition of teacher
E and that the High Court was wrong in coming to a contrary conclusion.
According to him the definition in section 2(n) is an inclusive one and,
therefore, must be interpreted as extending to persons other' then those
included within the inclusionary part of the section, and who come within
the main part ot the definition. Learned counsel also referred us to
p Regulations 3 & 33 of the Regulations dated 9.12.1965 prescribed in regard
to the conditions of service of teachers and other employees of the univer-
sity. Counsel also relied upon a letter of the Joint Registrar of the Univer-
sity dated 29.7.1976 and the proceedings of the Education department of
the State government dated 29.11.1976 and 20.4.1987 to contend that
physical Director was treated as a 'teacher and was not therefore outside
G the definition of 'teacher'. He also relied upon the additional affidavit filed
by the respondent in the Andhra Pradesh High Court to say that going by
the duties of the Physical Director as set out in the said additional affidavit,·
he must be deemed to be a 'teacher'. On the above basis, he contend~d
that the age of superannuation is 60 years applicable to 'teachers' and !lot
H 58 years which was applicable to certain other categories of employees.
P.S.R. RAO v. AP. AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY [M. JAGANNADHARAO, J.] 205
On the other band, learned counsel for the university contended that A
Physical Director was not a 'teacher' within the meaning of said expression
in .section 2(n) of the act and that he could not be continued till he
completed 60 years. There was no regular curriculumn or syllabus for
physical education and merely because he was helping the students in
sports and games and for participating in certain competitions, he could B
not be called a 'teacher'.
For the purpose of deciding the above issue arising between the
parties, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the
Regulations. Sub-clause (n) of section 2 defines 'teacher' as follows :
c
"teacher" includes a professor, reader, lecturer or other person
appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of
imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or exten-
sion programmes, and any person declared by the statutes to be a
teacher"
D
The definition does not say what the word 'teacher' means out
includes certain categories within the meaning of the said word.
• Regulation 33(as amended on 27.4.1976) of the Regulations deals
with the presumption of the age of superannuation and, in so far as it is E
material, reads as follows :
"(a) The age of retirement for teachers shall be 60 years provided
that it shall be competent for the appointing authority be com-
petent for the appointing authority to review the case of any F
teacher at any time after he attains the age of 58 years and retire
him. without assigning any reason, giving three months prior notice
or after paying him three months salary in lieu of such notice.
(b)(i) The age of retirement of the employees other than those
mentioned in Clause (a) and Class IV employees shall be 58 years G
provided that the appointing authority may retire an employee
from service in public interest, after giving him at least three
month's notice or at least three month's salary in lieu of such notice
at any time after completing twenty five years of qualifying service
or attaining fifty years of age. H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A (b)(ii) "The age of retirement of the Class IV employees shall be
60 years, provided that the appointing authority may retire an
employee from service in public interest, after giving him atleast,
· 3 month's notice or atleast three month's splary in lieu of such
notice at any time after completing twenty five years of qualifying
service or attaining fifty five years of age."
B
From the above Regulation, it is clear that the age of retirement for
69
'te.achers' is yeas and for other employees it is 58 years while the age of
Class IV employees is 60 years. It is, therefore, clear that if the appellant
is a teacher, he will come under sub-clause (a) of Regulation 33 and is
C entitled to be continued till he completes 60 years. If on the other hand he
does not come within the definition of teacher, he has to retire at the age
of 58 years under clause b(i) of the above-said Regulation.
Neither the Act nor the rules & regulations specify the duties and
functions of a Physical Director. We have, therefore, to go to by the
D material available in the affidavits filed by the parties to decide that
question. In the additional countel' affidavit filed on behalf of the Univer-
sity in the High Court, it is stated in paragraph 7 as follows :
"I further submit that the duties of the Physical Directors in this
E U nivcrsity, in brief, arc as follows :
(a) to arrange Games and Sports daily in the evenings for the
students.
(b) to look after the procurement of sports material and the
maintenance of the sports grounds.
(c) to arrange Inter-class and Inter-Collegiate tournaments.
F
(d) to accompany the student Teams for the Inter-University
tournaments.
(e) to Quide the students about the mies of the various games and
sports."
G From the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that a Physical Director has
multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for the students
every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the
maintenance of the grounds out also arranges inter-class and inter-college
tournaments and accompanies the students team when they go for the
H inter- University tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his important
P.S.R. RAO v. A.P. AGRICULTURAL U~ITY [M. JAGANNADHARAO, J.] 207
duties to guide them about the rules of the various games and sports. It is A
well known that different games and sports have different rules and prac-
tices they will not be able to pay the games and practices and unless the
students are guided about the said rules and participate in the sports in a
proper manner. Further, in our view, it is inherent in the duties of a
Physical Director that he imparts fo the students various skills and techni- B
ques of these games and sports. There are large number of indoor and
outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has
to teach them several skills and the techniques of these games apart from
the rules applicable to these games.
Having regard to the above-said material before us, we are clearly of C
the view that the appellant comes within the definition of a teacher in
sub-clause (n) of section 2 ,of the Act.
We may also here refer to certain proceedings relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellant. The Secretary to the university Grants D
Commission in a letter dated 7.1.1959 addressed to the Registrar of the
Agricultural University in connection with the upgrading of the scales of
Physical Directors referred to the minimum qualifications required for an
appointment of a Physical Director and in the said letter described Physical
Directors as "teachers". The relevant portion of the said letter reads as
follows: E
"I am directed to state that the University Grants Commission
considered the question of upgrading the salary scales of teachers
of Physical Education in Universities and Colleges and decided as
follows: F
The minimum qualifications for appointment as a Director of
Physical Education or a Physical Instructor in Universities and
colleges should be a Post-Graduated Diploma (or certificate) of
Degree in Physical Education. Persons with much qualifications G
may be appointed in the same scale of the universities may be
appointed in the scale of pay of Readers if the Universities so
desire. Persons with lower qualifications may be appointed on the
same terms as Tutors and Demonstrators. These teacher of Physi-
cal education may be included among the teaching staff of College
and Universities for purpose of revision of salary scales. H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A 2. I am to request you to furnish the information in respect of the
existing Physical Instructors in the Universities and Colleges in the
enclosed proformas, with a commitment to share the increased
cost at 20% in the case of University teachers and 50%, 25% in
the case of College Teachers consequent upon the fixation of their
B salaries in the revised grades. If the scheme of upgrading the salary
males of tel\chers of physical Education as detailed above, is
acceptable to the University/college, the date of the implementa-
tion of the scheme will be the same as for the other teachers viz.
1.4.1956 in the case of Universities teachers and 1.4.1957 in respect
c of College teachers."
In fact, it is clear from the above that while computing the percent-
ages of teachers mentioned in para 2 of the said letter, Physical Directors
have also to be counted.
D There is memorandum of the Joint Registrar of the said university
dated 29.7.1966 deaiing with the case of one M. Hanumanth Rao, Physical
Director in connection with his retirement, it is clearly admitted that
Physical Director comes within the category of teachers. The relevant part
of the said letter reads as follows :
E
"With reference to his letter cited, the Principal Agricultural Col-
lege, Bapatla is informed that the Physical Directors working in
the Colleges under Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University come
under the category of teaching staff and that the age of retirement
F for such employees has been prescribed in the Andhra Pradesh
Agricultural University (conditions of Service) Regulations, 1965."
In connection with the Physical Directors working in Degree colleges
and Junior colleges the Education department of the Andhra Pradesh
Government has issued proceedings dated 29.11.1976 and in the said
G proceedings Physical Directors have been described as teachers, for the
purpose of the application of the Andhra Pradesh General Subordinate
Service. In regard to the pay scales of Physical Directors in Degree
Colleges in the State, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued
proceedings dated 20.4.1987 designating Physical Education Directors as
H Lecturers in Physical Education.
P.S.R RAO v. A.P. AGRICULTURAL UNIVERsITY [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 209
We ar.e of the view that the above said communications of the A
University Grants Commission and of the Joint Registrar of the respondent
University and of the State Government support the view have taken above.
In the impugned judgment of the High Court has been said that
merely because Physical Directors are paid the same scales of the teaching B
staff that does not confer on them the status of a teacher. There is also no
discrimination if Physical Directors are retired at the age of 58 years and
another teachers are allowed to retire at the age of 60 years. The High
Court further said that while it was true that section 2(n) of the Act
contained an inclusive definition of 'teacher', the Physical Director did not
come within the categories mentioned in the inclusive definition. They are C
neither professors nor readers nor lecturers nor were they persons ap-
pointed or recognised by the university for the purpose of imparting
instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes.
In our view, the learned Judges did not go into the meaning of the D
word "teacher" in the main part of the clause nor assess correctly the effect
of the material evidence on record. The learned Judges observed that
assuming Physical Directors imparted instructions to his students, unless
the University recognised them as teachers they could not claim the benefit
of section 2(n) of the act. Obviously the learned Judges were referring to
the last part of section 2(n) which includes persons other than those E
enumerated in the inclusive part if so recognised by the University. As we
have held that the Physical Directors come within the main part of the
definition of teacher, it is in our opinion not necessary that they should be
separately recognised as teachers by an order or status of the University.
F
In the additional affidavit of the university, referred to earlier, it is
no doubt contended tliat a semester course in the University means a unit
of instruction and devotes a segment of subject matter to be covered in a
semester. Under such a system a person has to get a specific number of
credits. A credit hour "means one hour lecture or two to three hours of a
laboratory or field work" in practicals. It is contended that the student G
underg.oes a course of study leading to various under-graduate programmes
in. the University and has to pass course and complete the minimum
number of credit hours prescribed therefor from time to time. So far the
.games and sports are concerned, it is contended, that there is no weightage
of credit hours and there are also no theoretical and practical courses H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A prescribed for the students. It is contended that for the said reasons
Physical Directors cannot be treated as teachers.
We are unable to agree. It may be that the Physical Director gives
his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evening after the
regular classes are over. It mayalso be that the University has not
B prescribed in writing any theoritical and practical classes for the students
so far as physical education is concerned. But as pointed by us earlier,
among various duties of the Physical Director, expressly or otherwise, are
included the duty to teach the skills of various games as well as their rules
and practices. The said duties bring him clearly within the main part of the
C definition as a teacher'. We, therefore, do not accept the contention raised
in the additional counter affidavit of the University.
For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and judgment of the
High Court is set aside and it is declared that appellant was entitled to
continue in service till he completed 60 years of age. Now that he has
D retired he is entitled to the emoluments payable to him for the remaining
period of the service upto the completion of 60 years deducting the period
for which he worked as Physical Director beyond 58 years pursuant to stay .
orders granted by the High Court. His retiral benefits shall also be com-
puted on the basis that his age of retirement was 60 years. The appeal is
E allowed and disposed of accordingly.
l.M.A. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "teacher definition"Sign in to search