JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd December 2007 made in Writ Petition No. 8194/2006 laid by the Association of Physical Education Teachers (hereinafter referred to as "physical Education Teachers") who are working in the affiliated colleges of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). ( 2. ) THE Physical Education Teachers sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (for short hereinafter referred to as 'rajiv Gandhi University') to treat the Physical Education teachers in the colleges affiliated under the Rajiv Gandhi University as teachers within the meaning of Section 2 (m) of the Act and for a consequential direction to include them in the list of voters (electorate) for electing the Senate Members under Section 2 (xii) of the Act. The claim of the Physical Education Teachers is based on: (i) Section 2 (m) of the Act which defines 'teachers'; (ii) The decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. S. Ramamohana Rao Vs. A. P. Agricultural University and another reported in 1997 SC 3433 and; (iii) The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ appeal No. 1685 of 1980 (The Bangalore University, Jnana bharathi, Bangalore Vs. A. J. Belgaumi). ( 3. ) ON the other hand, the writ petition was resisted by the Rajiv gandhi University on the ground that Physical Education is not classified as faculty as per the Statutes of the University. According to the University, as per the notification of the University dated 23. 12. 1996, it was notified that the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences shall consist of the following faculties: i. Faculty of Medicine ii. Faculty of Dentistry iii. a. Faculty of Indian system of Medicine including ayurveda, Unani, Naturopathy and Yoga b. Faculty of Homeopathy iv. Faculty of Pharmacy v. Faculty of Nursing vi. Faculty of Biomedical Sciences and Allied Subjects. 4.1. It is their contention that except the above six faculties, there is no faculty for Physical Education. Faculty of Dentistry iii. a. Faculty of Indian system of Medicine including ayurveda, Unani, Naturopathy and Yoga b. Faculty of Homeopathy iv. Faculty of Pharmacy v. Faculty of Nursing vi. Faculty of Biomedical Sciences and Allied Subjects. 4.1. It is their contention that except the above six faculties, there is no faculty for Physical Education. In the absence of a faculty for Physical education, the Physical Education Teachers are considered only as a non-teaching employees of the University because as per Section 30 of the Act the faculties of the University and their composition shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes that are made under the Act. In other words, the faculties which are not prescribed under the Statutes, the employees who are not known as specific faculties, the faculties that are not composed or prescribed by the Statutes made under the Act shall not have the status of a 'teacher'. 4.2. In other words, the Act being intended to establish and incorporate a University in the State of Karnataka to be known as the Rajiv Gandhi university of Health Sciences, particularly, for the purpose of ensuring proper and systematic instruction, teaching, training and research in modern medicine and Indian Systems of Medicine in the State of Karnataka and the term 'health Sciences' is defined under Section 2 (e) to mean, modern scientific medicine in all its branches, concerning preventive, promotive, curative and rehabilitative services, and includes surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, pharmacy, dental science, nursing and other allied subjects and includes the Indian systems of Medicine in all their branches, it is submitted unless the Physical Education Teachers are employed as a member of the faculty that are composed and prescribed under the Statute as per Section 30 of the Act, by a notification of the university dated 3.11.1997, the Physical Education cannot be treated as a subject governing Health Sciences within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Act for the purpose of including the Physical Education Teachers within section 2 (m) of the Act which defines 'teachers' as hereunder: "2 (m) - "teachers" includes Professors, Readers, Assistant professors, Lecturers and such other persons giving instruction on full time basis in a college or institution of health science. " 4. 3. " 4. 3. Therefore, the Physical Education Teachers, according to the Rajiv gandhi University, are only non-teaching employees of the University and hence, they cannot become the Members of the Senate as per Section 21 (2) of the Act, whereunder, "no non-teaching employee of the University or an affiliated college shall be eligible to be elected or nominated by the senate. " 4. 4. It is also contended on behalf of the University that the decision in P. S. Ramamohana Rao Vs. A. P. Agricultural University and Another reported in 1997 SC 3433 and the decision of the division bench of this court in Writ Appeal No. 1685 of 1980 (The Bangalore University, Jnana bharathi, Bangalore Vs. A.J. Belgaumi) are not applicable to the facts of the case and they do not arise under the provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi university of Health Sciences Act. ( 4. ) UPON the above conflicting arguments, the learned Single Judge decided the issue whether the Physical Education Teachers in the Rajiv gandhi University or those working in the colleges affiliated to the Rajiv gandhi University are 'teachers' within the meaning Section 2 (m) of the act and if so, whether they are entitled to contest and vote the Member of the Senate, in favour of Physical Education Teachers, by order dated 3rd december, 2007 hence the present appeal. Mr. N.K. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the University reiterated the submissions made on behalf of Rajiv Gandhi University before the learned Single Judge, but, we are unable to agree with the said contentions as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. ( 5. ) TO substantiate the reason for disagreement with the learned counsel appearing for the University, we feel it apt to refer to Section 2 (e), 2 (m), and 2 (n) of the Act and also Section 21 (2) and Section 30 of the Act. "section 2 (e) - "health Sciences" means modern scientific medicine in all its branches, concerning preventive, promotive, curative and rehabilitative services, and includes surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, pharmacy, dental scienbe, nursing and other allied subjects and includes the Indian systems of medicine in all their branches. Section 2 (m) - "teachers" includes Professors, Readers, assistant Professors, Lecturers and such other persons giving instruction on full time basis in a college or institution of health science. Section 2 (m) - "teachers" includes Professors, Readers, assistant Professors, Lecturers and such other persons giving instruction on full time basis in a college or institution of health science. "section 2 (n) - "teachers of the University" means persons appointed for the purpose of imparting instructions on full time basis in the University or in any college maintained by the university. Section 21 (2) - No non-teaching employee of the University or an affiliated college shall be eligible to be elected or nominated by the Senate. Section 30 "the Faculties" - The Faculties of the University and their composition shall be such as may be prescribed by the statutes. " 7.1. Section 2 (m), which defines "teachers" is inclusive. The term 'teacher', therefore, includes Professors, Readers, Assistant Professors, readers and such other persons giving instructions on full time basis in a college or institutions of Health Sciences. (emphasis supplied) 7.2. Again Section 2 (n) further makes it clear that 'teachers of the university' also means persons appointed for the purpose of imparting instructions in any college maintained by the University. (emphasis supplied) ( 6. ) IT is not in dispute that the Institutions where the Physical Education teachers are employed are institutions of Health Sciences. Therefore, the issue is not whether the Institutions where the Physical Education Teachers are employed are Institutions of Health Sciences or not, but, the issue is whether the Physical Education Teachers are employed for giving instructions or imparting instructions in such institutions? Since there is no dispute as to the impugned issue, we also feel it apt to refer to the definitions defined under Section 2 (12) of the Karnataka state University Act, 2000, where the term 'teachers' is defined as hereunder: section 2 (12) "teachers" means Professors, Assistant professors, Readers or Lecturers imparting instructions in any university. 9. 1. Both the definitions are pari materia. 9.2. Of course, our attention was also drawn, as to who are the Officers of the University, where, under Section 11 (1) of the Karnataka State universities Act, there is a separate provision for Director of Physical education, which, reads as under: "section 11 - The following shall be the Officers of the university, namely:- (1) The Director of Physical Education. " 9.3. " 9.3. The mere want of a separate faculty for Director of Physical education will not exclude Physical Education Teachers within the meaning of definition of 'teachers' either under Section 2 (m) of the Rajiv Gandhi university Act or Section 2 (12) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. Therefore, we do not see any relevancy in the contention of the learned Counsel with reference to Section 30 of the Act. 9.4. In fact, by a judgment made in Writ Appeal No. 1685/1980 in the case of The Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi, Bangalore Vs. A.J. Belgaumi, this Court has held that Physical Education Teachers are included within the definition of teachers under Section 2 (12) of the karnataka State Universities Act. ( 7. ) ONLY to test the status of the Institution whether it is intended to maintain health education or otherwise, in our considered opinion, Section 2 (e) is relevant. However, since there is no dispute as to the fact that these physical Education Teachers are employed in the Institutions of Health sciences, there is no relevancy to refer to Section 2 (e) at all. On the other hand, the Act does not define teaching or non-teaching staff. ( 8. ) IN P. S. Ramamohana Rao's case, the issue was whether the director of Physical Education come within the definition of 'teacher' with reference to Section 2 (n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University act, which reads as hereunder: "sub-clause (n) of Section 2 defines 'teacher' as follows: "teacher" includes a professor, reader, lecturer or other person appointing or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes, and any person declared by the statutes to be a teacher. "11.1. The definition of 'teacher' under Section 2 (n) of the Andhra pradesh Agricultural University Act also includes any person declared by the statutes to be a teacher. "11.1. The definition of 'teacher' under Section 2 (n) of the Andhra pradesh Agricultural University Act also includes any person declared by the statutes to be a teacher. But, under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural university Act or the Rules or Regulations framed thereunder, though there was no specific duties and functions prescribed for Physical Education director, even then, the Apex Court held that the Director of Physical education Teacher come within the definition of 'teacher' referred to above it further held that merely because Physical Education Teacher gives guidance and teach his students only in the evening after the regular course is over, it may not be proper to construe that they are not teachers. On the other hand, among various duties of the Physical Education director, they do discharge the duty of teaching skills of various games as well as their rules and practices and therefore, the Apex Court held that the Physical Education Director also come within the meaning of 'teacher' defined under Section 2 (n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act. Even though the said definition provides for any person declared by a statute to be a teacher, as also the said definition of teacher is inclusive in nature, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, the non-prescription of the Act, Rules or Regulations in writing as to theoretical and practical classes for the students so far as physical education, is totally irrelevant. Similarly in the instant case, merely because there is no independent faculty for Director of Physical Education under the provisions of the statute, the Physical Education Teachers cannot be excluded from the definition of 'teachers' as the definition of teacher under Section 2 (m)of the Act is inclusive and what is all relevant is only whether they are giving or imparting instructions in the College or Institutions of Health science. 12.1. In the absence of any specific provision under the Act that the physical Education Teachers are only non-teaching employees of the university and that they are appointed by a different process from that of teaching staff of the University, we are unable to take a different view than the one constructed and held by the learned Single Judge holding that the Physical Education Teachers are 'teachers' within the meaning of Section 2 (m) of the Act and therefore, they are not non-teaching staffs. Consequently, they cannot be debarred from the eligibility to elect or nominate the Senate Members or to be elected or nominated as Members of the Senate under Section 21 (1) of the Act. ( 9. ) FOR all these reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.