Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who declined to accept the appellant's claim that he being a member of teaching staff of the respondent University is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. 2. We have heard Senior counsel Shri.N.N.Sugunapalan, appearing for the appellant, and learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University. 3. Even though the prayer is for a declaration that the appellant is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years, as a matter of fact, the appellant retired 10 years back at the age of 55 as Scientific Officer from the University of Kerala, and as of now he is more than 65 years old. The appellant's case is that as a Technical Assistant initially and thereafter as a Scientific Officer he was guiding and instructing students, and so much so he answers the definition of "teacher" as defined under Section 2(27) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, which status entitles him to continue in service up to 60 years. The definition clause of "teacher" is as follows:- "Teacher" means a principal, professor, associate professor, instructor, orassistant or supervisingsuch otherprofessor, reader, lecturer, person imparting instructions research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University. 4. A Division Bench of this Court considered the meaning of "teacher" with reference to research staff and held in the decision in W.A. No.1099/88 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. 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. 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 It is 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". It is the above principle that was followed by the learned Single Judge to hold that the appellant was not employed or appointed by the University to work as a person to impart instruction or to supervise research students. Even though learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he has acted as a Guide for various research students in the course of several years, what is admitted is that he was not appointed as an Instructor to teach research students or to guide them in the research work. Even though learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he has acted as a Guide for various research students in the course of several years, what is admitted is that he was not appointed as an Instructor to teach research students or to guide them in the research work. In other words, the University as such has not recognised him as a person employed to assist research students or to teach research students to obtain PhD degree. When the University did not engage the appellant to act as a Research Guide or to supervise the work of research students, we feel the appellant will not come within the above definition clause as a member of the teaching staff. The appellant has no case that any other person posted as Scientific Officer in the University was allowed to continue beyond 55 years of age under the category of teaching staff, members of which alone are entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age. What is clear from the above judgment is that the mere fact that the appellant was associated with research students or has helped students in research work, does not mean that he is a person engaged to supervise or assist research students. May be as a Scientific Officer the appellant would have volunteered to help research students in their research, but the same will not make him "teacher" within the meaning of that word contained in the definition clause. In other words, appointment by the University as an Instructor or as a person to supervise research work is a mandatory requirement, for a researcher to become a teacher. So much so, we agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant as Scientific Officer cannot be treated as a "teacher" for the purpose of extension of service up to 60 years. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.