JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner's case, in brief, is that be was in the service of the army for a considerable period and after his retirement was appointed by the authorities of the Sainik School in Purulia as its Librarian on 2nd April, 1984. He has passed B.A. examination in 1964 from Punjab University and obtained a Degree of Bachelor of Library Science in 1966 from Sagar University. He joined the army in 1952 as an A.E.C. Instructor and promoted as Subedar Major and retired as Captain. When in army his work was of a trainer/teacher of different categories of army personnel and in addition to his duties he was also looking after the library of the army where he was posted. His date of birth is 4th February, 1932 and the post of Librarian in any educational institution does not come under the general category of employees i.e. non-teaching staff. His contention is that the condition of his service under the respondents was equivalent and at par with the services of those who are working as teachers by taking classes only and belongs to the class academic other than general staff. He was getting all facilities of a teaching staff and the scale of Trained Graduate Teacher i.e. Rs. 1400-2600/-. According to the Government of India's Circular dated 12th August, 1987 issued by Human Resources Development. Department of Education, it was made clear that the categories of employees who would be deemed to be the teaching staff of the institute included several categories of academic staff including the Librarian. The aforesaid mentioned circular was clarified by another circular dated 13th November, 1987 and the said circular was accepted by the Board of Governor of Sainik School as communicated by the Board on 8th February, 1989. His main contention is that the age of retirement of teaching/academic staff is 60 years and as the petitioner also belongs to the same cadre and his retirement also falls within this category. It is stated that under the Rules of Sainik Schools previously the age of retirement was 58 years of all categories of staff including teaching and non-teaching but some time in July 1984 the Board of Governors introduced a new age of retirement of general staff i.e. those who are not connected with the academic side at 58 years and the teaching and academic staff at 60 years. The case is that as Librarian he belongs to miscellaneous/allied categories and he is entitled to serve the School till the age of 60 years. The authorities by a communication dated 7th December, 1989 informed the petitioner that he would be superannuated on 5th February, 1990. On receiving the said intimation the petitioner made a representation dated 11th January, 1990 to the Principal of the School, respondent No.3, for consideration of his case and another representation was made on 22nd January, 1990 but no step was taken. The petitioner came to know that the Board of Governors clarified that the age of retirement of Librarian in Sainik School is fixed at 58 years. He protested against this and also made a representation on 9th February, 1990. His further contention is that under the general law he is entitled to one year notice before retirement. He further contended that it is a well settled principle of law that the Librarian do not belong to the general category of a staff but belongs to miscellaneous/allied categories and the petitioner as such cannot be forced to retire according to law. The petitioner though retired has not as yet been released from service. The grounds taken pin-point to the aforesaid facts. 2. By an additional Affidavit the petitioner placed before the Court certain documents including circulars issued by the Board of Governors, Sainik School Society and Human Resource Development (Department of Education), Government of India. 3. The respondent No. 3 by an Affidavit-in-Opposition strongly contested the case of the petitioner and, Inter alia, stated that the petitioner was appointed as the Librarian on 2nd April, 1984 at the age of 52 years in Sainik School at Purulia and was not a teaching staff of the School. According to Rule 5.29 of Sainik School Society Rules, 1984 teachers must be between the age of 21 and 35 years. The petitioner also did not belong to any special category nor possess qualification as required for it teacher. The petitioner was required to carryon his entire service as Librarian unlike other teachers who perform a different kind of work and therefore under Rule 5.30 of the said Rules the petitioner would retire at 58 years. The petitioner also did not belong to any special category nor possess qualification as required for it teacher. The petitioner was required to carryon his entire service as Librarian unlike other teachers who perform a different kind of work and therefore under Rule 5.30 of the said Rules the petitioner would retire at 58 years. It is further stated that the petitioner's claim on the basis of Memo dated 3rd Nov., 1987 issued by the Union Ministry of Resource Development, Department of Edn., cannot be admitted because the said Memo was afterwards clarified. By Memo dated 12th Sept., 1989 in the said clarification it was said that the teaching allowance is admissible only for performing the duties of a teacher and as the Librarians are not performing the duties of a teacher, they are not entitled to payment or teaching allowance. The writ petition according to the said respondent refers to Annexure 'IV' of a particular Memo but Annexure 'IX' of the said Memo actually refers to the revised scale of teachers of different categories. It is specifically submitted that for all practical purposes the petitioner was not a teaching staff and the averment have been made only on the basis of the Memo of 15th May, 1987. But the clarification thereafter had been made for the administrative purpose as well as for the purpose of pay scale. It is further contended that the petitioner was appointed only at the age of 52 years unlike other teachers of the School and he cannot claim retirement at 60 because the age limit for entry into service of teachers must be between the age of 21 and 35 years. It is accepted that he made representations and all his representations were forwarded to higher authorities and the Honorary Secretary, Sainik School Society, New Delhi, by telegraphic reply received on 15th February, 1990 stated that the petitioner should retire at the age of 58 years and he was asked to hand over the stores and charge once again and as such he was directed to retire on 20th February, 1990. It is further stated that all the representations were fully considered and decisions were taken thereon. It is reiterated that the petitioner is not a teacher and does not come within the category of a teacher but is a Librarian of the Sainik School and is governed by the Sainik Schools Society Rules. It is further stated that all the representations were fully considered and decisions were taken thereon. It is reiterated that the petitioner is not a teacher and does not come within the category of a teacher but is a Librarian of the Sainik School and is governed by the Sainik Schools Society Rules. An allegation has been made by the respondent No.3 that even after passing the order by me on 1st March, 1990 the petitioner went to the School on the 2nd and 3rd March, 1990 for resuming the duty as Librarian without any order of the High Court and created problems there which effected the smooth academic atmosphere of the School. 4. The respondent No.3 filed a Supplementary Affidavit in view of my order dated 3rd April, 1990. It is stated therein that a Sainik School is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and according to Clause 3A of the Memorandum of Association one of the objects is to establish Sainik School in various parts of India, providing special school education of high standard with the aim of preparing boys academically and physically (or entry into National Defence Academy and other works of life. It is not an ordinary School and therefore the Principal of the Schools and Headmasters and the Physical Instructors are drawn from the army. The administration of the Schools are control by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and not by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education) as in the case of Kendria Vidyalaya known as Central School. Paragraph 7 refers to several Rules and Regulations of the Sainik Schools Society which, Inter alia, indicates that the Chief Minister or the Education Minister of the State are among the Members of the Board of Governors and an officer of the Ministry of Defence is the Honorary Secretary where is the General Officer/Commanding-in-Chief of the concerned command or an officer equivalent to the same status in Navy or Air Force or an officer of the rank of Major-General functions as Chairman of the Local Board of Administration. The Principal, the Headmaster and the Registrar are officers of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, Major and Captain, respectively. The retirement of the teachers' age is 60 but continuous beyond 58 years is subject to conditions. The Principal, the Headmaster and the Registrar are officers of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, Major and Captain, respectively. The retirement of the teachers' age is 60 but continuous beyond 58 years is subject to conditions. The teachers enjoy certain benefits as stated in Paragraph 8 thereof but the Librarian is neither teacher nor the benefits are meant for him. 5. The above Affidavit by respondent No.3 was opposed by the petitioner by filing a fresh Affidavit wherein he stated that the contentions made therein are totally incorrect in each and every respect. The contention in the said Affidavit is more academic than of assistance to the Court. The petitioner also filed an Affidavit-in-Reply and stated specifically that Rule 5.30 is never applicable to the petitioner's case for the purpose of retirement of the General Cadre Staff because the petitioner did not belong to general/non-academic staff. Virtually the Reply is the denial of everything that has been said by the respondent No.3 in his Affidavit-in-Opposition and Supplementary Affidavit and does not throw any further light on the subject. 6. Mr. Sircar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that as Librarian the petitioner belong to the Miscellaneous/Allied Categories of teacher and as such he was entitled to serve the Institute or to serve the School till the age of superannuation which ought to have been 60 years. It was only in February, 1990 that the petitioner came to know that the Board of Governors clarified the age of retirement of a Librarian in Sainik School at 58 year. It is further contended that Rules 5.02 and 5.18 must be taken into consideration before deciding the matter. He further submitted that Rule 5.30 was subsequently amended and as such the original must be compared with the amended one. In this connection Mr. Sircar cited a decision reported in (1) 1989(1) Lab LJ 263 (All India Sainik Schools Employee Association v. The Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman, Board of Governors etc.) wherein it was held that Sainik School Society is a Society and It is founded by the State Governments and the Central Government and the overall control vests in the Governmental Authority. Sircar cited a decision reported in (1) 1989(1) Lab LJ 263 (All India Sainik Schools Employee Association v. The Defence Minister-Cum-Chairman, Board of Governors etc.) wherein it was held that Sainik School Society is a Society and It is founded by the State Governments and the Central Government and the overall control vests in the Governmental Authority. The main object of the society is to run schools and prepare students to fit in the National Defence Academy whereas the Kendriya Vidyalaya and School is the creation of the Central Government and financed wholly out of the Central Exchequer which the Sainik School is not. It is further held by the Supreme Court that claim for equal pay for equal work should be supported by clear materials and a bare statement that the Kendriya Vidyalaya and Sainik Schools impart education to students cannot sustain the claim of equal work. 7. Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3, made much emphasis on Rule 5.29 on age limit which Indicates that the recruitment of teacher must be made between the age of 21 and 35 years but the petitioner entered into service at the age of 52 years and as such he is not entitled to get any such benefit as claimed by him. It is further contended that the petitioner does not come under any special category nor he has the requisite qualification of B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed. It is contended by the learned Advocate that the petitioner has got no requisite qualification to be called a teacher. In support of the contention the contested respondent No.3 relied upon several documents. 8. Mrs. Archana Sengupta, the learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India, respondent No. 1, adopted the argument of Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.3. 9. The impugned order under challenge is the Memo dated 7th December, 1989 issued by the Principal of the Sainik School, Purulia, under Rule 5.30 of the Sainik School Rules, 1984 informing the petitioner, Inter alia that he would retire on 5th February, 1990 at the age of 58 years. Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.3. 9. The impugned order under challenge is the Memo dated 7th December, 1989 issued by the Principal of the Sainik School, Purulia, under Rule 5.30 of the Sainik School Rules, 1984 informing the petitioner, Inter alia that he would retire on 5th February, 1990 at the age of 58 years. By a representation dated 11th January, 1990 the petitioner wrote to the Honorary Secretary of the Sainik Schools Society, New Delhi, that the services of teachers of Sainik School are extendable upto 60 years but Rule Book is silent over the Librarian of academic itself and prayed that as he was physically and mentally fit his service be extended upto 60 years. A representation, was thereafter sent to the same effect on 22nd January, 1990 to the Principal of the School. The Under Secretary on behalf of the Honorary Secretary, Sainik Schools Society, by a communication dated 12th February, 1990 enclosed a copy of the Honorary Secretary's letter dated 19th January, 1990 to the Principal wherein it was clarified that the petitioner's age of retirement as Librarian in the Sainik School was 58 years and as such he would be retired on 28th February, 1990 on superannuation. Along with the Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner there is an Annexure-IV being No. F. 5-180/86-UT.I dated 3rd November, 1987 relating to the revision of pay scale of School teachers, and in connection with the implementation of the revised pay scales of School teachers certain points were raised for clarification. One of the points No. 9 runs as under :- "Whether these pay scales are applicable to the miscellaneous/allied teachers like Music Teacher, Drawing Teachers, Physical Education Teachers, etc." And the clarification is as under ; These pay scales are applicable to miscellaneous/allied category of teachers like music teachers, drawing teachers, art teachers, craft teachers, vocational guidance instructors, physical education teachers, language teachers, the librarians or equivalent teaching posts carrying any other designation.” But it must be noted that this is the clarification by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) and not the Defence Ministry. By a Circular dated 15th May, 1987 issued by the Board of Governors of the Sainik School Society, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, the decisions taken was circulated to the Principals of all Sainik Schools on the subject of revision of pay and grant of bonus and D.A. to Sainik School Staff. it is stated in paragraph 3(1) that the grant of pay scales based on the recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 1st January, 1986 to the teaching staff of Sainik Schools as already sanctioned by K.V.S. (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan) for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Teaching Staff. The Annexure-I of the said Additional Affidavit gives a chart of Designation, Existing scales and Revised Scales of academic staff of Sainik Schools as well as Annexure-II shows the above pay scales of non-academic staff of the said Schools. The designations in Annexure-I from Serial Nos. 1 to 6 relate to Master, Assistant Master, Art Master, Physical Education Master, etc. with their pay scales and, undoubtedly, the Serial No.7 i.e. Librarian comes under academic staff. Taken as a whole these two annexures are of some importance to the petitioner. By a Circular dated 20th July, 1984 issued by the Board of Governors to the Principals of all Sainik Schools it appears that under clause (v) the age of retirement of Sainik Schools teachers has been raised from 58 Years to 60 years and would be effective from 27th June, 1984 but the continuance in service beyond 58 would depend upon physical fitness and satisfactory performance of duties. From Rule 5.02 of Chapter-V under the heading “Authorisation/Academic Staff" the post of Librarian figures and the non-academic staff under Rule 5.18 the Librarian does not figure. It also appears that the petitioner in August 1984 was granted the Honorary rank of Captain. 10. The defence relies heavily upon Rule 5.29 which is of importance and is quoted as follows :- "The minimum age of entry into Sainik Schools service will be 18 and the maximum age will be 50 except for teachers who must be between the age of 21 and 35 years. Relaxation in age limit may be granted by the Hony. Secretary depending on the merit of each case and such proposals need be sent before issue of formal appointment letters." And in accordance to Rule 5.30 the retirement age of staff is 58 years. Relaxation in age limit may be granted by the Hony. Secretary depending on the merit of each case and such proposals need be sent before issue of formal appointment letters." And in accordance to Rule 5.30 the retirement age of staff is 58 years. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed at the age of 52 years unlike other teachers of the said School when the normal age of recruitment of teachers is between 21 and 35. This itself goes to prove that the petitioner was taken in the School but was included in a non-academic group. The petitioner’s reliance on the Memo of 3rd November, 1987 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) does not indicate the entire position because by Memo dated 12th September, 1989 issued by the Under Secretary of the Sainik School, Ministry of Defence, clarified the position as under :- “Accordingly the question regarding grants of teaching allowance to the librarians of Sainik Schools has been re-examined. The teaching allowance is admissible only for performing the duties of a teacher as already clarified vide Sl. No.12 of Para 5 of the clarification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) in their letter No. F.5-180/85 UT.I dated 3.11.87 which was circulated along with Sainik School Society’s letter No. PC-10(4)/87-SSC dated 6.2.89.” So from this clarification it is clear that the Librarians are not performing the duties of a teacher and not entitled to the payment of reaching allowance. The very fact that the petitioner was appointed at the age of 52 instead of the age mentioned in Rule 5.29 goes counter to his case of being in the category of teachers. Inclusion of his name incidentally in some papers does not confer upon him the right of becoming an academic staff contrary to the clarification quoted hereinbefore. In my view the case cited on behalf of the petitioner reported in 1989 (1) Lab.L.J. 263 (Supra) is of no help in support of his contentions. 11 The Memorandum of terms and conditions of appointment signed by the petitioner indicates in clause (iv) that an appointee shall continue to hold his office till the age of 58 years except as otherwise provided in this Rules. 11 The Memorandum of terms and conditions of appointment signed by the petitioner indicates in clause (iv) that an appointee shall continue to hold his office till the age of 58 years except as otherwise provided in this Rules. It is further stated in the said clause that employment of staff in Sainik Schools beyond the age of 58 years and upto the age of 60 years is subject to certain conditions. The said Memorandum does not appear to be statutory in nature and cannot confer any special right upon the petitioner to challenge the extension by another two years. Paragraph 3 of a Circular dated 12th September, 1989 issued by the Board of Governors is of vital importance on Librarians and must be quoted here : “The librarians are not performing the duties or a teacher. As such, if is once again retreated that librarians are not repeat not entitled to the payment of teaching allowance. However, the question of granting senior scales to them is being examined separately.” This particular circular buries once for all the controversy that a librarian is included among the academic staff and is to be considered as a teacher. If the pay scale of Librarians are pushed up this does not mean that the category of the Librarians have also been changed and they are to be equated with teachers. 12. It is further clear from the pleading and the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents that the administration of the Sainik Schools are controlled by the Ministry of Defence and not by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education). As stated repeatedly hereinbefore the Board of Governors at New Delhi is solely in charge of all the administration and functions of Sainik Schools under the Chairmanship of the Defence Minister and each School has a Local Board of Administration and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief or an officer equivalent to the said rank is to be the Chairman of the Local Board of Administration. The Principal, the Headmaster and the Registrar are all from the rank of the Army. Simply by putting the designation of Librarian in the category of academic staff, a Librarian cannot be turned into a teaching staff. The pay scale is not always the criteria to judge the rank or status or obligation or performance of duties of a particular post. Simply by putting the designation of Librarian in the category of academic staff, a Librarian cannot be turned into a teaching staff. The pay scale is not always the criteria to judge the rank or status or obligation or performance of duties of a particular post. There is no doubt that Mr. Sircar has ably presented the case of the petitioner but I am unable to accept his submission whereas the arguments advanced by Mr. Banerjee is acceptable to me. 13. In the circumstances the writ application fails and is dismissed without costs. All interim orders stand vacated. Let xerox copies of this judgment be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of the necessary formalities.