Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioner who is working as Scientific Officer, Division of Marine Chemistry, Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries under the second respondent University applied for the post of Reader in the Department of Environmental Sciences. The second respondent by Ext. P1 notification invited applications for various posts including the post of the Reader in the Department of Environmental Sciences. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader were as follows: "Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Candidate from outside the University System in addition shall also possess atleast 55% marks or an equivalent grade at the Master's degree level. Eight years experience of teaching and/or research including upto three years for research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational renovation, design of new courses and curricula." The above qualifications are in consonance with the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission for the post of Reader. The petitioner's application was rejected by the second respondent as per communication dated. 2.1.95 (Ext. P2) on the ground that he does not have the prescribed qualification/ experience in teaching/ guiding research etc. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext. P3 representation requesting to reconsider the same. Ext. P3 was rejected by Ext. P4 stating that his application for the post of Reader in Environmental Sciences could not be agreed to, since he was over aged and did not possess the qualification prescribed for the post. The petitioner challenges Ext. P2 and P4 in this original petition. 2. According to the petitioner, he is fully qualified to be considered for selection to the post of Reader in Environmental Sciences. He has produced Ext. P8 certificate issued by the Professor and Head of Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries to prove that he was teaching both theory and practical classes in Marine Chemistry for M.Sc. and M.Phil courses in Aquatic Biology and Fisheries from 30.6.1982. By Ext. P9, the petitioner wants to impress upon this Court that the post which he is holding has been associated with teaching/ research work in the department. By Ext. P10, sanction was accorded by the first respondent for recognition as Research Guide of 11 persons including the petitioner. By Ext. By Ext. P9, the petitioner wants to impress upon this Court that the post which he is holding has been associated with teaching/ research work in the department. By Ext. P10, sanction was accorded by the first respondent for recognition as Research Guide of 11 persons including the petitioner. By Ext. P11, sanction was accorded by the first respondent to register one Smt. V.K.Jeeja Kumari as are search Scholar and candidate for PhD. Degree in Aquatic Biology and Fisheries to work under the petitioner. Ext. P13 is a copy of the time table for teaching M.Sc. Previous degree course in the Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries. On the basis of these documents, the petitioner contends that he is having teaching experience and he is involved in teaching in the Department. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. G.D. Panicker invited my attention to the definition of 'teacher' contained in S.2(27) of the Kerala University Act 1974 which reads as follows: 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." Therefore, it was argued before that a person supervising research will also come under the definition of 'teacher'. 4. The University has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated as follows: The screening committee rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that he lack teaching experience and also he was over aged. The petitioner is holding the post of Scientific Officer which is not a teaching post. Merely because the petitioner was allowed to teach the students or to guide research scholars does not mean that he is a teacher and included as a member of the teaching staff of the University. The counter affidavit further states that as per the Kerala University First Statutes 1977, Chapter III, Cl. 5A, relaxation in the upper age limit can be allowed only in the case of persons in the teaching service of the University. On the above basis, it was argued that the petitioner must be in the teaching service of the University in order to get the benefit of relaxation of age. 5. The learned senior standing counsel Sri. 5A, relaxation in the upper age limit can be allowed only in the case of persons in the teaching service of the University. On the above basis, it was argued that the petitioner must be in the teaching service of the University in order to get the benefit of relaxation of age. 5. The learned senior standing counsel Sri. Sukumaran Nair, who appeared for the additional third respondent, who has been selected and appointed to the post of Reader brought to my notice a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No. 1099/88. There, the question was whether Deputy Director, Department of Adult Education in the University of Calicut is a teaching post for the purpose of determining the age of superannuation. The definition of 'teacher' as noticed earlier in the Kerala University Act also occurs in S.2(27) of the Calicut University Act. The case of the petitioner therein was that she was a teacher firstly on the ground that she had to be treated as a person employed to impart instruction and secondly on the ground that she had been employed to supervise research. Considering the above question, the Division Bench held as follows: "The question for consideration is as to whether the recognition by the University of the respondent as a person to guide or supervise research of PhD. Students confers on her status as a teacher as defined in S.2(27) read with S.2(28) of the Act. It is clear from these provisions that it is not enough that a particular person is recognised to supervise or guide research. What is of essence of the matter is that the person must have been employed by the University to supervise or guide research. The case put forward by the respondent at the highest is that she has been recognised by the University to guide research students for their Phd. degree. That is precisely the stand taken by the University also. It is nobody's case that the respondent has been employed or appointed to supervise or guide research. What has been done by the University is to give recognition having regard to the attainments of a particular person as having the necessary qualifications to guide or supervise research. When recognition was given to the respondent to guide or supervise students for Phd. What has been done by the University is to give recognition having regard to the attainments of a particular person as having the necessary qualifications to guide or supervise research. When recognition was given to the respondent to guide or supervise students for Phd. course, what the University did was not to employ the respondent to do supervisory work on research or guide research, but only to accede to her request for such recognition. In other words, it only amounts to granting permission to- the respondent to supervise or guide research students. There is a fundamental difference between assigning of particular duties and responsibilities and the granting of permission to a particular person on her own request to do certain thing. When recognition is given by the University to supervise or guide research, it is not in exercise of any right of the employer to expect the person concerned to do this work of supervising or guiding research as an integral part of the duties and responsibilities attached to that post. The concept of employment is highlighted in the definition of the University teacher given in S.2(2) of the Act. Itis therefore, clear that it is not enough that a person is recognised as a guide or supervisor for research, to give him or her the status of a teacher. What is required is that such a person should have been employed to do such work of guiding or supervising research. This crucial link is missing in this case". If the above dictum is followed, then the various certificates produced by the petitioner will not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner was a teacher coming within the definition of teacher in the Kerala University Act. The petitioner, who is only a member of the non-teaching staff was of course directed to teach both theory and practical classes in Marine Chemistry for MSc. and M.Phil courses. But that does not entitle the petitioner to claim the status of a teacher. Similarly, merely because the petitioner was recognised as are search guide for research scholars, it does not mean that the petitioner is a member of the teaching staff. Even if the petitioner is having tea clung experience sufficiently enough to satisfy the qualifications, to cover the age restriction, he has to become a member of the teaching service so as to get the benefit of the First Statute. 6. Even if the petitioner is having tea clung experience sufficiently enough to satisfy the qualifications, to cover the age restriction, he has to become a member of the teaching service so as to get the benefit of the First Statute. 6. In this case, Ext. P1 notification prescribes 8 years experience of teaching as a qualification for appointment as the Reader in Environmental Sciences. The certificates produced by the petitioner showing that the professor and Head of the Department was assigning him teaching programme cannot be relied on to prove that he has got the required teaching experience. It is not possible to rely on those certificates especially when the petitioner is not competent to teach and was not appointed as a member of the teaching staff. Merely because the petitioner was allowed to handle classes for a few hours, it does not mean that he has acquired necessary teaching experience in order to satisfy the requirement of the qualification. Therefore, I think the University was quite correct in rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was not qualified and he was over aged 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued on the basis of Ext. P15 that in a similar case an Assistant Curator in the Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries was appointed as a Reader in the same Department. But, it was not averred by the petitioner in the original petition that the qualification prescribed for the above post of Reader insisted teaching experience and that the above Curator was not having the teaching experience. Under these circumstances, I am unable to countenance the above argument urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The original petition is dismissed.