Abdul Gafoor, J.

An interesting question arises in these appeals-, whether coaches appointed by the University for different games and athletics are "teacher of the University" as defined in Section 2(28) of the Calicut University Act. It the answer is in the affirmative, necessarily, they can continue in service until they attain the age of 60 years. On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, they being members of non-teaching staff, have to retire on superannuation on completion of the age of 55 years going by the provisions contained in the first statues. The learned single Judge answered this question in the negative and dismissed the writ petitions. So these appeals.

2. All the appellants except that in W.A.No.2174/99 had retired from service. They continued until the age of 60 years on the strength of interim orders passed in the respective original petitions. The appellant in W.A.No.2174/99 is still continuing in service, though he had crossed the age of 55 years on the strength of the interim order passed in that case. The original appellant in WA.No.2689/99 is no more. The retrial benefits have to be calculated based on the findings as to whether he was entitled to continue until 60 or 55 years as the case may be. Therefore, his legal representatives have got themselves impleaded to prosecute the appeal further.

3. Now, we will proceed to examine the issue involved. All the appellants were appointed as "coaches". This is not disputed. According to the appellants, especially, as averred in para 18 of the memorandum of the original petition in O.P.No.6337/91, they are taking classes for physical education, imparting classes to the students in the University Departments and affiliated colleges. They are also imparting instructions to the University teams and co-curricular activities including physical education which is a subject of study. Therefore, they are persons imparting instructions to the students. So they shall be regarded as "University Teacher". It is so contended by the other writ appellants as well. The writ appellant in W.A.No.2175/99 along with C.M.P.No.41239/99, has produced certain documents, Exts.P15, P16 and P17, whereby the University had appointed him to take classes for certain purposes. According to him, these are sufficient documents issued by the University itself to show that coaches are also imparting instructions and taking classes. Thus, on the basis of these pleadings and materials, they contend that they are University teachers in terms of the definition in Section 2(28) of the Calicut University Act. All of them also rely on the decision reported in P.S.Ramamohana Rao v. A.P.Agricultural University (AIR 1977 SC 3433).

4. On the other hand, it was contended by the University that "coaches" are not teachers. Calicut University First Ordinance, 1978 categorises the different non- teaching posts in its schedule. Item No.57 is "coaches". When the persons with the designation as "coaches", like the petitioners, are statutorily categorized as members of non-teaching staff, they cannot contended that they are "teachers" to come within the definition in Section 2(28) of the Act. The provisions contained in the University Ordinance forms part of the conditions of service of the coaches. Therefore, they being so categorised as members of non-teaching staff, they shall have to be governed by the retirement rules as are applicable to the non-teaching staff and therefore, they have to retire on superannuation at the age of 55 years. It is further contended by the University that there are different methods to the appointment to teaching posts and non-teaching staff. The petitioners were appointed following the procedure as are applicable to the members of the non-teaching staff. So they cannot contend that they belonged to teaching category. Yet another contention raised by the University is that the petitioners appointed as coaches do possess only matriculation and a certificate issu