Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(MP) 1009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.
Dr. Rajender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Jiwaji University And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1944 of 2020
Decided On : 30-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Petitioner is present in person.
For the Respondent:Shri K.N. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Suhani Dariwal, Advocate and Shri Rinku Shakya, Advocate Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjer, learned counsel

A position does not qualify as a teaching post based solely on duties performed. Eligibility for the retirement age applicable to teachers depends on the statutory definition and formal appointment criteria, which distinguish university officers from the teaching cadre, precluding independent judicial re-classification of such posts.

Headnote:(A) State University Act, 1973 - Sections 3(xx), 18, 49(2) - Retirement age - Whether a director of physical education qualifies as a teacher to claim parity in superannuation age - Definition of teacher requires express appointment for imparting instructions or conducting research as per statutory approval - Held, post of director of physical education is a distinct non-teaching post - Status of teacher not conferred solely by performance of overlapping duties if not appointed as such (Paras 19, 20, 32, 34).

(B) Judicial Review - Service matters - Courts should exercise restraint in matters involving classification of posts and prescription of service conditions - Statutory definitions and appointment procedures formulated by expert bodies take precedence over claims of parity based on functional similarity or nomenclature (Paras 23, 28).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as a director of physical education, filed a petition seeking to extend his age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years, claiming parity with university teachers. The petitioner asserted that his duties, which included classroom instruction, supervising research scholars, and academic participation, brought him within the statutory definition of a teacher. The university maintained that the petitioner was appointed as an officer and not a teacher, therefore falling under the retirement age prescribed for such non-teaching staff.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the governing act clearly distinguishes between teaching faculty and other officers of the university. It held that the performance of teaching-related functions does not automatically elevate a non-teaching post to the status of a teacher. The court emphasized that the judiciary should not interfere with the expertise of academic bodies in defining roles and determining retirement ages unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or manifest illegality.

Issues: Whether the post of a director of physical education constitutes a teaching post under the governing statute, thereby entitling the incumbent to an enhanced age of superannuation applicable to university teachers.

Ratio Decidendi: Status as a teacher is determined by the governing statute and formal conditions of appointment. When the law explicitly identifies a position as an administrative or academic support officer separate from the teaching cadre, the court will not substitute its opinion for that of the competent authorities, regardless of the nature of duties performed.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual context and employment history of the petitioner as director of physical education. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's contention that a director of physical education qualifies as a 'teacher' and is entitled to parity in retirement age. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. respondents' argument that the petitioner's designation does not fall under the statutory definition of 'teacher' per university regulations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's interpretation of statutory provisions and precedent confirming that director of physical education is not a teacher for retirement age parity. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

ORDER :

Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(1) The order Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to discharge the duties upto the age of 65 years.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the peculiar set of facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be awarded to petitioner.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present of the case, in short, are that petitioner was appointed as a Research Assistant at LNIPE, Gwalior (M.P.) vide Office Order No.25/2714 dated 07.07.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physical Education (Sports Psychology) vide Office Order No.25/373 dated 18.04.1985 at LNIPE, Gwalior (M.P.). Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer in Senior Scale (Rs.3,000–5,000) vide Office Order No.614/21 dated 01.01.1991 at LNIPE, Gwalior (M.P.). Subsequently, vide order dated 29.12.1992, the petitioner was appointed as Director of Physical Education in the pay scale of Rs.4,500–150–7,300/- vide Office Order No. Admin/Inst/921/6258. The petitioner joined the post of Director of Physical Education on 29.12.1992 (afternoon) at Jiwaji University, Gwalior (M.P.) after applying for lien at LNIPE, Gwalior. The petitioner was granted lien for a period of two years on the post of Senior Lecturer from LNIPE, Gwalior vide Office Order No. Conf/718/93 dated 29.03.1993. The members of the Selection Committee were nominated by the Standing Committee on behalf of the Academic Council as per the provisions of Section 49 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhinimyam, 1973 (for brevity, “the Act, 1973”) under Agenda Item No.7(b), Page 267. It was resolved that the appointments to the posts of Director of Physical Education and Assistant Director of Physical Education be made in accordance with Section 49 of the Act, 1973. Two experts were nominated by the Standing Committee on behalf of the Academic Council as per the provisions of Section 49 (2) of the Act, 1973. The resolution of the Standing Committee dated 13.05.1992 was approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 20.05.1992. The Kuladhipati nominated three experts to the Selection Committee for appointments in the Department of Physical Education to the posts of Director of Physical Education and Assistant Director of Physical Education, as per the provisions of Section 49 (2) of the Act, 1973 with reference to D.O. Letter No. VC/92/317 dated 15.10.1992. The petitioner was appointed as Director of Physical Education, Jiwaji University, Gwalior on the recommendation of the Selection Committee duly constituted under the provisions of Section 49 (2) of the Act, 1973, applicable to teaching faculty members. The appointment was approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 29.12.1992 under Item No.117. The petitioner joined the post of Director, Physical Education on 29.12.1992 (afternoon).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by orders dated 26.06.2019 and 10.01.2020, the respondents have deliberately retired the petitioner at the age of 62 years, whereas the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(MP) 1009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORAnand Singh Bahrawat, J.Dr. Rajender Singh - PetitionerVersusJiwaji University And Others – RespondentsWrit Petition No. 1944 of 2020Decided On : 30-10-2025

Cases Referred (8)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.
Dr. Rajender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Jiwaji University And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1944 of 2020
Decided On : 30-10-2025