( 1 ) THESE two appeals involving common questions of law and facts were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of this matter is not in dispute.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT 1 herein was appointed as an Assistant Librarian in bangalore University. He was promoted as Deputy Librarian in May 1980. He was appointed as a Librarian in the University against a vacant post on 2-3-1994.

( 4 ) THE respondent filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the university to treat him as a Lecturer contending, inter alia, that he had been appointed as an Honorary Visiting Professor to participate in the teaching work of the Department of Library Science without any financial commitment by an office order dated 20-9-1986 and as such he would be deemed to be a "teacher of the University" within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2 (8) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short "the Act" ). It was further contended that in terms of the said appointment as Honorary Visiting Professor he has been participating in the teaching work.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the said writ petition stating:

" persons appointed means they must have been appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. There is no provision under the Act providing for appointment of a visiting Professor. At the best it may be an arrangement made by the department concerned or Vice-Chancellor to meet the exigencies of the situation. As the visiting h professor or guest Lecturer is not appointed under the provisions of the act, even though they satisfy the condition of imparting instruction cannot be said that they are teachers of the University for the purpose of conferring the benefit allowed to the teachers of the University. "

( 6 ) ON an appeal preferred therefrom by the respondent herein, the division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, however, held that as the appellant had been performing teaching job, he would be treated to be a teacher for all practical purposes within the meaning of Sections 2 (7) and 2 (8) of the Act and would, thus, be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ appeal was, accordingly, allowed by the Division Bench of the High court with a direction to the appellant University to treat the post of librarian held by the respondent as teacher and extend him the benefit of age of superannuation, which is fixed for the teachers. However, as the respondent had retired in the meantime, he was held to be entitled to the monetary benefits, treating him as a "teacher".

( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that keeping in view the definition of "teacher" as contained in Sections 2 (7) and 2 (8) of the Act read with Sections 9, 19 and 49 thereof, the High Court must be held to have erred in issuing the impugned direction.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would draw our attention to the definition of "teacher" as contained in the statutes framed by the University, to show that thereunder not only salaried employees of the University appointed as Professor, Reader or Lecturer or other teachers of the University, but also the Professors, Readers or Lecturers or teachers of the University appointed by the University to work on honorary basis would come within the purview thereof.

( 9 ) THE fact that the respondent was appointed as a visiting Professor without any monetary benefit in the year 1986 is not in dispute. We, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that despite the same, he was appointed as a librarian only in the year 1994. The respondent accepted the said post without any demur whatsoever. It is not disputed that in the University, there are two categories of posts; one being for "teaching" and the other being "non-teaching". The age of superannuation of teaching staff is