Abdul Gafoor, J.

The point raised in this appeal by the Cochin University of Science and Technology is in a narrow compass – as to whether the first respondent/writ petitioner, who was the Deputy Director of Physical Education and Head or Department in the appellant University, now redesignated as the Director and Head of Department, is occupying a “teacher post” so as to enable him to continue in service until the age of 60 years, which is prescribed as the superannuation age, for the members of teaching staff. The learned single Judge, relying on the decision reported in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University (AIR 1997 SC 3443) and considering the duties enjoined on the first respondent/petitioner came to the conclusion that he is occupying a teaching post and therefore, entitled to the benefit of continuance until 60 years of age and accordingly Ext.P10 issued to the contrary was quashed.

2. Assailing this finding, it is contended by the University that the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Officer initially. There is no department of Physical Education in the University. He has never been assigned and work of imparting lessons or instructions or of teaching. He had been assigned only the job of accompanying the students in competitions of games or athletics and to form University teams to represent the University in inter-University meets. The University did not have a department of physical education and he was not expected to impart any instructions to the students. Hence he cannot be regarded as Physical Education Teacher. Relying on the definition of “teacher” contained in Section 3(22) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act (for short “the Act”) it is contended that anyone other than Professor, Reader, Lecturer imparting research in the department or schools of the University or in any recognized institutions of the University alone will be considered as a teacher. As per the definition, Teacher means a Professor, Reader, Lecturer or such other person imparting instructions or supervising research in the departments/schools of the University or in recognized institutions, whose appointments has been approved by the University. Therefore, unless one comes within the definition and his appointment is duly approved by the University, he cannot be regarded as a teacher.

3. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University (AIR 1997 SC 3433) it is submitted that definition of the work “teacher” considered by the Apex court in that decision differs from the definition in the Act. In the definition considered by the Apex Court, one need not be attached to a department or a school or recognized institution, but need only be one appointed “for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting an guiding research or extension programmes, and any person declared by the statutes to be a teacher”. When the wording in the Act is different, necessarily the decision of the Apex Court cannot, as such, be applied to the facts of this case. It is further submitted distinguishing the decision reported in Sivasankara Kaimal v. University of Calicut (2003 (1) KLT 146) that it was a case where the incumbent was appointed as a “coach” which means to coach students in the concerned game or sports which involves element of instructions and therefore a teacher. On the other hand, it is submitted, placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench in W.A.No.911/97 that a Head of Department of Physical Education was found to be a member of a non-teaching staff in relation to Calicut University. That decision squarely applies to this case. Therefore, the view taken by the learned single Judge is not justified on the fact situation of the case, so contends the appellant.

4. At the same time, it is contended by the counsel for the first respondent/petitioner that there is a Department of Physical Education in the University. That is why h