Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 712 (MP)

Amrish Kumar Gupta v. State of M. P.

2013-06-27

SUJOY PAUL

body2013
JUDGMENT In these three petitions, the issues are common and, therefore, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. 2. The singular question involved in this case is whether the petitioner, a Laboratory Technician working in the Jiwaji University, Gwalior can be treated as a "Teacher"? Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under and taken from W.P.No. 2368/13. The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Attendant in the Vishwavidyalaya. He was promoted as Laboratory Assistant by order dated 2.12.1978. Thereafter, the Vishwavidyalaya re-designated the name of Laboratory Assistant as Laboratory Technician by order dated 27.1.1987. On the strength of this order, the petitioner became Laboratory Technician and was working in the same strength. The basis for claiming relief in this petition is the order of State Government (Higher Education Department) dated 6.3.1997 (Annexure P-3) wherein the State Government had decided to treat the post of Laboratory Technician as a teaching post with further direction that they will retire on attaining 60 years of service. The petitioner also relied on the Jiwaji Vishwavidyalaya's notification dated 17.8.2002 whereby the age of retirement of University Teachers was enhanced from 60 to 62 years. Shri J.P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a conjoint reading of Annexure P-4 dated 3.9.1998, circular dated 6.3.1997 (Annexure P-3) and notification dated 17.8.2002 makes it crystal clear that the petitioner was entitled to continue till 62 years. He then relied on the amendment published in Madhya Pradesdh Gazette (extraordinary) dated 6.5.2011 (Annexure P-14) whereby the Madhya Pradesh Shasakiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1967 was amended whereby the age of superannuation of teachers is further extended from 62 to 65 years. He relied on the explanation mentioned in the said schedule. In addition, Shri Kushwaha relied on the definition of "Government Teacher" mentioned in the notification dated 6.5.2011. He submits that the definition of Teacher in the notification is very wide which includes the post of Laboratory Technician. These three petitions were filed on different occasions when the age of superannuation was enhanced. Shri J.P.Kushwaha submits that the University is bound by the decision of the State Government and the petitioner is entitled to be treated as Teacher and resultantly entitled to continue till 65 years. 3. The said contention is opposed by Ms. Anuradha Singh and Shri R.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the Vishwavidyalaya. Shri J.P.Kushwaha submits that the University is bound by the decision of the State Government and the petitioner is entitled to be treated as Teacher and resultantly entitled to continue till 65 years. 3. The said contention is opposed by Ms. Anuradha Singh and Shri R.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the Vishwavidyalaya. They submit that Annexure P-3 dated 6.3.1997 has no application on the Vishwavidyalaya. It is further submitted that the Vishwavidyalaya desired direction from the Coordination Committee whether the age of superannuation of Laboratory Technician can be enhanced. However, no decision in favour of the petitioner was taken and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as University Teacher and hence not entitled for any relief. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioners' bone of contention is based on the circular of the State Government. However, petitioner is unable to show that the said circular of the State Government is automatically applicable to the Vishwavidyalaya. A bare perusal of the circular makes it clear that it was issued for implementation in State Government Departments. The petitioner has also relied on the notification of the Vishwavidyalaya dated 17.8.2002 to submit that he is entitled to be treated as University Teacher. 6. On a specific quiry from the Bench, Shri J.P.Kushwaha was unable to show as to how Annexure P-14, i.e., amendment in the Adhivarshiki Adhiniyam is applicable on the employees of the Vishwavidyalaya. The petitioner has failed to show that the circular of the State Government (Annexure P-13) is applicable on the Vishwavidyalaya. It cannot be established by the petitioner that any decision is taken by the Vishwavidyalaya or the Coordination Committee either to adopt Annexure P-3 dated 6.3.1997 or any independent decision was taken to treat the Laboratory Technician as University Teacher and resultantly enhanced the age of superannuation. 7. It is apt to quote the definition of "Teacher of the University" mentioned in Section 4(xx) from the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, which reads as under:- "(xx) "Teachers of the University" means Professors, Readers, Lecturers and such other persons as may be appointed for imparting instructions or conducting research, with the approval of the Academic Council in the University or the College of Institution maintained or recognised by the University;" 8. A careful reading of this definition makes it clear that the Professors, Readers and Lecturers are to be treated as Teachers. A careful reading of this definition makes it clear that the Professors, Readers and Lecturers are to be treated as Teachers. Certain other persons who are appointed for imparting instructions or conducting research with the approval of the Academic Council of the University can also be treated as Teachers of the University. The petitioner has not shown any material which shows that he was imparting instructions or conducting research with the approval of Academic Council. Thus, from the definition aforesaid, the petitioner cannot be treated as "Teacher of the University". Since the statute, i.e., the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam contains a specific definition of Teacher, the petitioner cannot get any assistance from any other circular of the State Government or any other Adhiniyam which may be applicable to the State Government employees. The petitioner was required to establish his case within the ambit of Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam which governs the service conditions of employees working in the Vishwavidyalaya. In addition, the respondents have certified that at no point of time, the petitioner was required to impart education/instructions. 9. In the light of aforesaid, no case is made out by the petitioner. The petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as Teacher. Accordingly, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. However, it is observed that pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.2694/11, the petitioner continued in employment. In the interest of justice it is directed that no recovery be made from the petitioner for the services already rendered by him. However, his retiral dues and other benefits would be counted on the basis of actual date of retirement by treating him to be a Laboratory Technician and not a Teacher. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the petitions are dismissed.