O R A L O R D ER (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.R. Nayak) Writ Appeal No. 157 of 1999 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.10.1998 made in W.P. No. 22944 of 1996 whereas W.A.No. 1607 of 1999 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.7.1999 in W.P.No. 15557 of 1994. Since the common question whether ‘Librarian’ in Andhra University could be regarded as ‘teacher’ within the meaning of that term as defined under section 2(22) of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short, the Act) arises for four consideration and decision in these writ appeals, they were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The learned single Judge, having considered the definition of the term “teacher” as defined under section 2(22) of the Act and ‘teachers of the University’ under section 2(23) and Regulation 34 of the Andhra University Regulations,(for snort, the Regulations), has concluded that the post of a ‘Librarian’ in the University should be treated as a teaching post. In other words, ‘Librarian’ should be regarded as a teacher’ within the meaning of that term as defined under section 2 (22) of the Act. The above view taken by the learned single Judge, in our considered opinion, is well founded. 3. Section 2(22) of the Act defines the term ‘teacher’. It reads follows: “Teacher” means, Professors. Rea-ders, and Lecturers in a college and such other persons giving instruction in a college as may be declared by the Statutes to be teachers.” 4. “Teachers of the University” defined under section 2(23) of the Act reads as follows:- “Teachers of the University” means teachers appointed by the University to give instruction or guide research in the University and constituent colleges.” 5. Regulation 34 of the Regulations framed by the Andhra University reads as follows: “University Librarian: The Librarian shall be a whole time employee of the University appointed by the Executive Council. The internal management for the Library shall be vested in him subject to the general control of the Library Advisory Committee. He shall also do such teaching work as may be assigned to him from time to time.” 6. The internal management for the Library shall be vested in him subject to the general control of the Library Advisory Committee. He shall also do such teaching work as may be assigned to him from time to time.” 6. The only contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-university is that the Petitioners-Librarians, having been appointed with specific understanding that the post of Librarian is a non-teaching post and that they should retire on attaining the age of 58 years on par with other non-teaching staff, they are not entitled to claim the status of ‘teacher’ as defined under section 2(22) of the Act and, therefore, they are liable to be retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. 7. The orders appointing the petitioners as Librarians are not placed before us. Secondly, even assuming that in the appointment order it is stated that the post of University Librarian is a non-teaching post, that fact itself would not alter the status of ‘Librarian’. The question whether the post of Librarian is a teaching or non-teaching post has to be determined with reference to the statutory provisions. Regulation 34, in unmistakable terms, requires the University Librarian to undertake teaching work also if the University assigns such work to him. In other words, teaching work is also a part of the work to be performed by University Librarian. If that is so, the post of University Librarian falls within the definition of ‘teacher’ because he will undoubtedly be a person who is required to give instructions in a college. Simply because in the case of the petitioners, it so happened that they were not called upon to impar instructions to students in any college so far, that fact itself would no take them out from the definition of ‘teacher’. 8. At the time of hearing, it was brought to our notice that by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the Ist respondent in W.A.No. 157 of 1999 continued in service up to the age of 60 years and retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. We do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 9. The writ appeals are devoid of any merit and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. --X--