The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'Teacher' under relevant statutes and regulations, and the application of previous judgments to determine the retirement age entitlement of the Sports Officer.

1. This Writ Appeal was originally registered as Letters Patent Appeal and consequently re-registered as Writ Appeal under section 2 of the Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. Basically the respondents present appellant Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya (J.N.V.V.) being aggrieved by order dated 26-4-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1322/2000 has filed the writ appeal. The main bone of contention raised is that the learned Single Judge had directed that the petitioner would come within the purview of definition of Teacher as per Statute 32 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred as J.N.K.V.V.) and also within the purview of definition of Teacher as per Regulation 4 of the J.N.K.V.V. (General Conditions of Service Regulations 1929) and therefore, he is entitled to be retired after attaining the age of 62 years and therefore, the retirement order Annexure A/5 of the petitioner was quashed and the learned Judge had further directed the present appellant to pay emoluments and other benefits including the retiral benefits to the petitioner as if he was in continuous service upto the age of 62 years.

3. The facts necessary for the elucidation of the controversy are that the respondent was working as a Sports Officer/Physical Training Instructor in the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (hereinafter termed as 'the University') and had completed 60 years of age on 26-2-2000 and was entitled to be continued in service till the age of 62 years. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years on the basis of certain documents issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, whereby the age of retirement of the Teachers from service in 1988 was raised to 62 years by Government and consequently the J.N.V.V. also ought to follow the Rules of the State Government and the petitioner was entitled to be retired after attaining the age of 62 years instead of 60 years. W. P. No. 1322/2000 was filed consequent upon the petitioner receiving the order dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P/5) retiring him w.e.f. 30-6-2000 and the petitioner sought its quashment.

4. The present appellant J.N.V.V. opposed the contention of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner would not come within the purview of the definition of the Teacher under Statute 32 of the J.N.K.V.V. and the age of superannuation of the University employees was governed by Statute 11(4) sub-clause (d) of Statute 11(4) and provides that non-teaching service personnel shall be superannuated at the age of 60 years and since the petitioner was an employee of the non-teaching class he had been properly retired on attaining the age of 60 years. Moreover the petitioner was alluding to the instructions and notifications issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh by its department of Higher Education, whereas the post of a Sport Officer could not have been treated at par with that of a Government Teacher and moreover the employees of the University were regulated by different set up, rules and regulations referred to as the J.N.V.V. Adhiniyam and Regulation No. 4 and hence, the learned Single Judge had erred in quashing the order of retirement of the petitioner passed on his attaining the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years.

5. Thus, it can be culled from the above statement of facts that singular question that arises for adjudication in the present appeal is whether the respondent Shri P. C. Modi, who was working as physical training Instructor/Sports Officer is entitled to pay parity with the Teachers of the State Government, in fact whether the respondent/petitioner can be treated as a Teacher under prevalent J.N.K.V.V. Act.

6. Considering the submissions of the Counsel, we find that the Counsel for the respondent by relying on Anand Regional Co-op. Oil Seeds Growers' Union Ltd. vs. Shailesh Kumar Harshdbh