IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI WRIT PETITION No. 1500 of 2025 ANIL KUMAR BAGHERWAL Versus HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri L.C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Swati Ukhale - GA for the respondents/State Reserved on: 04.02.2026 Post on 18.02.2026.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P/10) issued by Respondent No. 3. By way of the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to be superannuated from the post of Sports Officer upon attaining the age of 62 years w.e.f. 31.01.2025, thereby rejecting his claim for continuance in service up to the age of 65 years, a benefit otherwise available to other teaching cadres of the Respondent-

Department.

2. The facts, strictly confined to the pleadings, are that the petitioner is a resident of District Mandsaur, having the date of birth 04.01.1963. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Physical Training Instructor (Sports Officer) in Shri Harak Chand Choradiya College, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur, a 100% government-aided private college vide order dated 18.01.1988 (Annexure P/1). This appointment was made following the recommendations of a duly constituted committee under College Code 28 of Vikram University, Ujjain. The petitioner’s appointment was confirmed vide order dated 05.07.2002 (Annexure P/2) with effect from 18.01.1988 and was approved by the then M.P. Higher Education Grants Commission (now Respondent No. 2) vide order dated 11.03.1988 (Annexure P/3).

3. The petitioner contends that his service conditions are governed by Clause 26 of College Code 28 and the M.P. Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (Annexure P/5). It is the case of the petitioner that while other teaching cadre officers (Assistant Professors, Professors, Principals) governed by the same 1990 Rules have been granted the benefit of superannuation at 65 years citing a "dearth of officers," the petitioner has been served the impugned order retiring him at 62 years, despite holding the status of a 'Teacher' and despite the alleged existence of vacancies in the Sports Officer cadre as per the Annual Administrative Reports (Annexure P/9).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the impugned order submitting that the definition of 'Teacher' encompasses Sports Officers. The petitioner relies on the seminal judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University, AIR 1997 SC 3433, wherein it was unequivocally held that a Sports Officer is a teacher as they impart instructions in sports. This view was followed by this Court in Chokhelal Sahu v. State of M.P. & Others, 2003 (4) MPHT 484 Furthermore, learned counsel places reliance on the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.C. Modi v. JNKVV & Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1664, to contend that the status of Sports Officers is indistinguishable from that of teachers. The petitioner argues that since he is treated as a teacher for all other purposes including the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and vacation entitlements, he cannot be treated differently for superannuation.

5. Developing the argument on status, learned counsel submits that as held by the Apex Court, for a Sports Officer, the playground acts as the classroom. Therefore, the distinction sought to be drawn by the Respondents between "classroom teachings" and "field duties" is artificial and unsustainable. The duties involve imparting technical skills, niceties, and rules of sports, which is legally equivalent to academic instruction.

6. The petitioner contends that the denial of superannuation at the age of 65 years amounts to hostile discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitu