1. The petitioner before this Court, who is serving the Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore on the post of Director, Physical Education has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 13.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) by which he has been treated as a Director of Physical Education.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Director, Physical Education after following prescribed procedure as provided under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 on 15.6.1990. The petitioner’s contention is that he has started a Yoga Centre with the financial support of UGC and in the Department of Physical Education and graduation, post-graduation, M.Phill and Ph.D. courses are being conducted and, therefore, he is in fact a teacher and is entitled to continue in service by treating him as a teacher. The petitioner has further stated that in the gradation list published by the University in the year 1996, he has been included in the teacher category and Executive Council in its meeting on 20.5.1998 has recommended the matter to the Chancellor to treat the petitioner as a teacher. The petitioner has also made a representation to the Chancellor and finally after a long drawn battle the Chancellor has passed an order on 6.8.1999 recognising the petitioner as a teacher. The University has also passed the consequential order dated 7.8.1999 treating the petitioner as a teacher, however, the impugned order has been issued on 13.5.2008 modifying the earlier order dated 7.8.1999, meaning thereby treating the petitioner once again as a Director of Physical Education. The petitioner has sought quashment of the order dated 13.5.2008 on the ground that he is discharging the duty of a teacher and, therefore, in light of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of P.S. Ram Mohana Rai v. A.P. Agriculture University [AIR 1997 SC 3433], is entitled to continue at par in service like the teachers of the University.

3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents/University and the stand on the University is that the petitioner was appointed as a Director of Physical Education keeping in view the Adhiniyam of 1973 and the statutes as well as Ordinance framed there under. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner is not a teacher as it defined under section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 and infact is a Director of Physical Education and, therefore, he has not been included within the definition of teacher, hence, the question of granting any benefit to the petitioner to continue in service at par with the teachers does not arise. The respondents have stated that the Director of Physical Education is certainly not a teacher. The process of appointing a teacher is altogether different and in the selection committee constituted for appointing a teacher, a representative of the High Education of State of Madhya Pradesh is a necessary member, whereas no such contingency is required while appointing a Director of Physical Education. The respondents have stated that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and there is a subsequent judgment delivered by this Court in the case of J.N. Vishwavidyalaya v. P.C. Modi [2010(1) MPLJ 375], wherein in similar circumstances, the Sport Officer was not treated to be a teacher.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009)13 SCC 635], Brijendra Kumar v. JNKVV [2011(II) MPWN 42=2011(1) MPLJ 589 (DB)], Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General, Indian Council [(2012)12 SCC 666], and University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde [(2013)10 SCC 519], and his contention is that the Director of Physical Education by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a teacher keeping in view the statutory provisions governing the field.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties