P. S. Ramamohana Rao vs A. R. Agricultural University

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(SC) 1051

1997(7) Supreme 93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Sujata V. Manohar and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
P.S. Ramamohana Rao -Appellant
versus
A.P. Agricultural University & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 898 of 1992
Decided on 31-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : L.N. Rao, G.R.K. Prasad, (V. Sridhar) Advocate for Ms. Vrinda Dhar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: T.V.S.N. Chari, Advocate.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963-Section 2(n) Regulation 33-Word teacher -Definition and scope-Age of Superannuation-Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University - Appellant working as Physical Director in the University-Whether entitled to be continued in service till he completed 60 years?-(Yes)-Appellant comes within definition of a teacher in sub-clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act-Communications of University Grants Commission and of Joint Registrar of respondent University and of State Government support the view.
       Held : Neither the Act nor the rules & regulations specify the duties and functions of a Physical Director. We have, therefore, to go by the material available in the affidavits filed by the parties to decide that question. (Para 8)
       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 but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompanies 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 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, in our view, it is inherent in the duties of a Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and techniques 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. (Para 9)
       Having regard to the above-said material before us, we are clearly of the view that the appellant comes within the definition of a teacher in sub-clause (n) of section 2 of the Act. (Para 10)
       Communications of the University Grants Commission and of the Joint Registrar of the respondent University and of the State Government support the view we have taken above. (Para 15)
       Further held : It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evenings 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 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 definition as a teacher . (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 12751 of 1988 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?

2. 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 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, therefor, stood transferred to the Agricultural University accordingly and the appellant continued to work as Physical Director in the 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 superannuation for Physical Directors in the University is 58 years. He contends that he is entitled to continue till he completed 60 years as he is also 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 after the vacation of the stay and before the completion of 60 years and also for the purpose of computing his retiral benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended by virtue of the definition 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 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 than those included within the inclusionary part of the section, and who come within the main part of the definition. Learned counsel also referred us to 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 university. Counsel also relied upon a letter of the Joint Registrar of the University 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 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 contended that the age of superannuation is 60 years applicable to teachers and not 58 years which was applicable to certain other categories of employees.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University contended that 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 curriculum 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 no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document