Judgment :- 1. A learned judge of this Court has referred this writ petition to be heard and decided by a Division Bench. 2. The writ petitioner was a Lecturer in Zoology in Sree Narayana College, Quilon, He was elected as a member of the Senate of the University of Kerala from the Private College Teachers' Constituency in 1975. While working as Lecturer in Zoology, and while continuing as a member of the Senate, he was sent on deputation from 191977 to 3181978 by Ext. P3 order as per terms and conditions in Ext. P1. The deputation was to qualify himself as a fellow in M. Phil, course in Aquatic Biology and Fisheries. The petitioner was promoted as a Professor of Zoology on 24 71978. After the deputation for M. Phil, course was over, petitioner joined duty as Professor of Zoology in Sree Narayana College, Punalur, on 191978. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 28 51979 that the petitioner's membership of the Senate had ceased with effect from 30 111977 under the first proviso to sub-section (3) of S.18 of the Kerala University Act. Ext. P8 is a copy of this communication. On the same reasoning, it was stated that the petitioner had ceased to be a member of the Senate after three months from the date on which he was sent on deputation for M.Phil, counsel Vide Ext. P10. The writ petition was to quash Ex P8 and P10. 3. S.2 clause (27) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, defines the expression 'teacher' as follows: "2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (27) 'teacher' means a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University; x" Clause (24) of the same Section defines the term 'student'. "(24) 'student' means a part-time or full-time student receiving instruction or carrying on research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions;" The antithesis as between the two definitions is that while the 'teacher' imparts instructions, the 'student' receives it. The learned Advocate-General pointed out that having regard to these definitions, during the period of his deputation, the petitioner, far from being a teacher imparting instruction or supervising research, was really one receiving instruction. The learned Advocate-General pointed out that having regard to these definitions, during the period of his deputation, the petitioner, far from being a teacher imparting instruction or supervising research, was really one receiving instruction. Counsel for the petitioner sought to avoid this argument by contending that on the proper understanding of the scope and content of the definition of the term 'teacher', the requirement as to 'imparting instruction or supervising research' is posited by the definition only in regard to the last and residuary category comprised in the definition, namely, "other person", and not with respect to the named categories preceding the same, such as the Principal, Professor, Associate Professor etc. We cannot accept this argument. It seems to us this will lead to a very anomalous situation. Apart from the concept of a teacher being associated with one who offers instruction, to hold that the named categories of persons need not impart instruction or supervise research, would be to do violence to the well-understood sense of the term in the field of education, and to violate the equality clause. We do not think we would be justified in understanding the definition in this sense. Counsel referred our attention to the Kerala University First Statutes Chap.49 entitled 'Conditions of Service of teachers in Private Colleges'. There again, we get the definition of teacher in Statute 1 as meaning Principal, Professor, Additional Professor, Assistant Professor and such other person imparting instruction or controlling or supervising research. This last requirement, we think, should qualify all the categories in the earlier part of the definition, and not merely the tail-end of it, comprising only the omnibus category of 'other persons'. We do not think the provisions of the First Statutes carry the matter any further. In this view, the position taken by the impugned orders that the petitioner had ceased to be a teacher, by reason of his deputation, is correct. 4. The petitioner had also raised the contention that the reference of the dispute for the decision of the Chancellor under S.77 of the Act, read with Statute 5(2) of the Kerala University (Conduct of Elections to various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes 1974, was not by the Vice Chancellor. This provision reads. "5. Decisions of the Vice-Chancellor. (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, the decision of the Vice-Chadcellor on any question relating to election shall be final. This provision reads. "5. Decisions of the Vice-Chancellor. (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, the decision of the Vice-Chadcellor on any question relating to election shall be final. (2) If any question arises as to whether any person has been duly elected as or is entitled to be a member of any authority or body of the University, the Vice-Chancellor shall refer it to the Chancellor, whose decision thereon shall be final." It is not possible for us to agree that there was no reference of the dispute by the Vice-Chancellor. The decision to refer was undoubtedly taken by the Vice-Chancellor as the files disclosed. The ministerial act of actually making the reference was done by the Registrar in implementation of the said decision. There is no infirmity in this respect. We see no ground to interfere. We dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs. Dismissed.