JUDGMENT 1. This Writ Appeal was originally registered as Letters Patent Appeal and consequently re-registered as Writ Appeal under section 2 of the Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. Basically the respondents present appellant Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya (J.N.V.V.) being aggrieved by order dated 26-4-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1322/2000 has filed the writ appeal. The main bone of contention raised is that the learned Single Judge had directed that the petitioner would come within the purview of definition of Teacher as per Statute 32 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred as J.N.K.V.V.) and also within the purview of definition of Teacher as per Regulation 4 of the J.N.K.V.V. (General Conditions of Service Regulations 1929) and therefore, he is entitled to be retired after attaining the age of 62 years and therefore, the retirement order Annexure A/5 of the petitioner was quashed and the learned Judge had further directed the present appellant to pay emoluments and other benefits including the retiral benefits to the petitioner as if he was in continuous service upto the age of 62 years. 3. The facts necessary for the elucidation of the controversy are that the respondent was working as a Sports Officer/Physical Training Instructor in the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (hereinafter termed as 'the University') and had completed 60 years of age on 26-2-2000 and was entitled to be continued in service till the age of 62 years. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years on the basis of certain documents issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, whereby the age of retirement of the Teachers from service in 1988 was raised to 62 years by Government and consequently the J.N.V.V. also ought to follow the Rules of the State Government and the petitioner was entitled to be retired after attaining the age of 62 years instead of 60 years. W. P. No. 1322/2000 was filed consequent upon the petitioner receiving the order dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P/5) retiring him w.e.f. 30-6-2000 and the petitioner sought its quashment. 4. W. P. No. 1322/2000 was filed consequent upon the petitioner receiving the order dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P/5) retiring him w.e.f. 30-6-2000 and the petitioner sought its quashment. 4. The present appellant J.N.V.V. opposed the contention of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner would not come within the purview of the definition of the Teacher under Statute 32 of the J.N.K.V.V. and the age of superannuation of the University employees was governed by Statute 11(4) sub-clause (d) of Statute 11(4) and provides that non-teaching service personnel shall be superannuated at the age of 60 years and since the petitioner was an employee of the non-teaching class he had been properly retired on attaining the age of 60 years. Moreover the petitioner was alluding to the instructions and notifications issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh by its department of Higher Education, whereas the post of a Sport Officer could not have been treated at par with that of a Government Teacher and moreover the employees of the University were regulated by different set up, rules and regulations referred to as the J.N.V.V. Adhiniyam and Regulation No. 4 and hence, the learned Single Judge had erred in quashing the order of retirement of the petitioner passed on his attaining the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years. 5. Thus, it can be culled from the above statement of facts that singular question that arises for adjudication in the present appeal is whether the respondent Shri P. C. Modi, who was working as physical training Instructor/Sports Officer is entitled to pay parity with the Teachers of the State Government, in fact whether the respondent/petitioner can be treated as a Teacher under prevalent J.N.K.V.V. Act. 6. Considering the submissions of the Counsel, we find that the Counsel for the respondent by relying on Anand Regional Co-op. Oil Seeds Growers' Union Ltd. vs. Shailesh Kumar Harshdbhai Shah, 2006 (6) SCC 548 stated that in the said case the Court had while considering the question whether an employee is a workman had held that in the test to determine the question the designation of the employee or the name assigned to his class should not be given undue importance. Not only the nature of his work but also the terms of appointment and the essence of the matter should be considered. Not only the nature of his work but also the terms of appointment and the essence of the matter should be considered. Counsel has further elaborated that the respondents had not controverted his stand and there was no denial that the Sports Officer also arranges games and sports for the students, besides looks after the procurements of sport materials, the maintenance of the grounds and arranges inter-class and inter-school tournaments and guides the students regarding the rules and practice of the games. Thus, he imparts various skills and techniques to the students and moreover the controversy was set to rest whether a Physical Training Personnel comes within the purview of definition of a Teacher under section 2(n) of M. P. Shashakiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 1984 by the Apex Court in the matter P. S. Ramamohana Rao vs. A. P. Agricultural University and another, 1997(8) SCC 350 which held thus : 20. We are unable to agree. It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evenings after the regular classes are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical and practical classes for the students so far as physical education is concerned. But as pointed by us earlier, among various duties of the Physical Director, expressly or otherwise, are included the duty to teach the skills of various games as well as their rules and practices. The said duties bring him clearly within the main part of the definition as a 'teacher'. We, therefore, do not accept the contention raised in the additional counter affidavit of the University and relying on the same judgment in the present case, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order of retirement and allowed the petition holding that he would be entitled to retire only on attaining the age of 62 years. 7. We, therefore, do not accept the contention raised in the additional counter affidavit of the University and relying on the same judgment in the present case, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order of retirement and allowed the petition holding that he would be entitled to retire only on attaining the age of 62 years. 7. After bestowing our anxious consideration to these facts and the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge of this Court had also relied on the decisions of two other judgments passed in W.P. 2086/2000, Padmakar Kaothekar vs. State of M. P. and W.P. 3665/2000, N. P. Shrivastava vs. State of M. P. whereby relying on the same judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ramamohana Rao (supra) the retirement age of a Sports Officer was held to be 62 years. This was also followed by several other judgments by this Court as well as the State Administrative Tribunal as it then existed. 8. A different view however, was also taken by a learned Single Judge of this High Court in the matter of Maya Verma vs. J.N.K. V. V., reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 288 , whereby the learned Judge referring to the definition of a Teacher as contained under section 2(x) and Statute 32 of the JNKVV Act 1964 and holding that only those personnel appointed for the purposes of imparting instructions could be interpreted in terms of Statute 32 and which enables the University to recognize the personnel as teachers and the petitioner in the said case was engaged as a Lady Extension Teacher and it was not equivalent to 'teacher' as described in section 2(x) of the Act of 1964 and Statute 32 of the extension activities of the University. Statute 32 reads as under : Vishwa Vidyalaya Teachers :- (1) Teachers of the Vishwa Vidyalaya shall be either - (a) servants of the Vishwa Vidyalaya paid by the Vishwa Vidyalaya for imparting instructions and or conducting and guiding research and or extension and/or programme as - (i) Professor (ii) Associate Professor, (iii) Assistant Professor; or (b) person appointed by the Board as Honorary Teachers in any of the aforementioned categories on such terms and conditions as the Board may prescribed by regulations. (2) A Teacher shall be eligible to impart instructions and/or conduct of guide research and/or extension programme only up to such standard for which he is recognized as such in accordance with the Regulations made by the Board in this behalf. (3) A Teacher shall perform such functions and discharge such duties as may be prescribed by Regulations by the Academic Council. (4) The word 'Teachers/Teacher' wherever it occurs includes person engaged in Research and Extension activities. 9. The Statute recognized only Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor as Teacher and the learned Single Judge held that while it is true that the designation of the Teacher did suggests that he/she was a Teacher and where the word "Teacher" must yield to the description contained in the definition under Statute 32 to which the petitioner does not correspond. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 10. Considering the entire controversy and various judgments cited above, we find that the entire controversy is set to rest by the recent Full Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State Government of M. P. vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (unreported) Civil Appeal of 2009 arising out ofS.L.P. (C) No. 25682 of 2008, whereby it considered all these decisions as well as P. S. Ramamohana Rao (supra). 11. The Apex Court was dealing with the core question whether the respondent who was working as a Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College is entitled to claim parity of pay with the teachers who have been granted the U.G.C. scale of pay. And the Apex Court has clearly directed that the ratio of the decisions in P. S. Ramamohana Rao (supra) does not ipso facto apply to each case and quote : 22. We may observe that definition of 'Teacher' contained in section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Act was an expansive one to include those persons who were not only been imparting instructions but also were conducting and carrying on research for extension programmes. It also included those who had been declared to be a Teacher within the purview of the definition thereof in terms of any Statute framed by such State. 23.In our view, the aforementioned decision has been misapplied and misconstrued by the High Court. It also included those who had been declared to be a Teacher within the purview of the definition thereof in terms of any Statute framed by such State. 23.In our view, the aforementioned decision has been misapplied and misconstrued by the High Court. It is now well settled principles of law that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. In Ramamohana Rao (supra), this Court, having regard to the nature of duties and functions of Physical Director, held that, that post comes within the definition of Teacher as contained in section 2(n). The proposition laid down that case should not have been automatically extended to other case like the present one, where employees are governed by different sets of rules. 24. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. No costs. 12. We may observe that the definition of 'teacher' as contained in section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Act was an expansive one and cannot govern the employee of any institution and consequently the ratio laid down in Ramamohana Rao (supra) cannot apply to J.N.K.V.V. Employees who are regulated by different set of rules and 'Adhiniyam' in the present case. It has been clearly established that the employees of the J.N.V.V. are governed by the Statute of the JNKVV and the Regulations made thereunder. The definition of a Teacher under the M. P. Government Service Rules cannot be imported into the Statute 32 to give it such a liberal interpretation so as to include a Sports Officer to be a Teacher and thereby widen the scope of a Teacher as defined in section 2(x) and the Statute 32. 13. In this light, we are of the considered opinion that the above mentioned decisions of this Court in the matter of Padmakar Kaothekar vs. State ofM. P., W. P. No. 2086/2000 and N. P. Shrivastava vs. State of M. P., W. P. No. 3665/2000 and other cases decided on the same lines are no longer a good law. The appeal is allowed. 14. Resultantly the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and it is directed that the order of retirement passed by the appellants Annexure P/5 dated 27-6-2000, retiring the petitioner at the attainment of age of 60 years is in accordance with law.