Antony Dominic, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C).No. 38323/2007, who are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition. That Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, challenging Ext.P1 notification issued by the appellants and to quash the selection process for appointment to the post of Director, Department of Physical Education, University of Kerala. He also sought a declaration that the selection process for appointment to the post of Director is vitiated, since the selection committee was not constituted in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala University First Statute, 1977.

2. By the judgment under appeal, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.S.Ramamohana Rao v. A.P.Agricultural University and another [(1997) 8 SCC 350], and the judgments of this Court in Sivasankara Kaimal v University of Calicut [2003 (1) KLT 146] and Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Joseph James [2005 (4) KLT 555], the learned Single Judge held that the post of Director, Department of Physical Education is a teaching post, attracting the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Kerala University First Statute 1977 and that therefore the selection process completed by the University leading to the appointment of the 2nd respondent, now deceased, is illegal. On that basis, the learned Single Judge directed the University to constitute a selection committee and to select a suitable candidate from among the candidates, who applied for the post in response to Ext.P1.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Writ Petitioner.

4. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that the post of Director, Department of Physical Education, is a teaching post. The expressions, 'teacher' and 'teacher of the University' have been defined in Sections 2(27) and 2 (28) of the Kerala University Act, 1 974, which read as under:

'2(27) "teacher" means a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or such other person imparting instructions or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University.

2(28) "teacher of the University" means a person employed as teacher in any institution maintained by the University.'

A reading of Section 2(27) shows that 'teacher' means principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or such other person imparting instructions or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University. This provision shows that the answer to the question whether one is a teacher as defined in the Act or not, depends more on the nature of duties that are discharged by the person concerned. Insofar as 'teacher of the University' as defined in Section 2

(28) is concerned, it means a person employed as teacher in any institution maintained by the University. Therefore, the expression, 'teacher' occurring in Section 2(28) has to take its colour from Section 2(27) and if so understood, the status of a person as a teacher of the University will also depend, to a great extent, on the nature of duties that are discharged.

5. The definitions, 'teacher' and 'teacher of the University' occurring in the Calicut University Act, 1975, the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, the Kannur University Act, 1996 and the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 are in pari materia with Sections 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act. In Sivasankara Kaimal v. University of Calicut [2003(1) KLT 146], the dispute that arose before a Division Bench of this Court was whether coaches appointed by the Calicut University for different games and athletics are teachers of the Un