ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court, who is serving the Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore on the post of Director, Physical Education has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 13.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) by which he has been treated as a Director of Physical Education. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Director, Physical Education after following prescribed procedure as provided under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 on 15.6.1990. The petitioner’s contention is that he has started a Yoga Centre with the financial support of UGC and in the Department of Physical Education and graduation, post-graduation, M.Phill and Ph.D. courses are being conducted and, therefore, he is in fact a teacher and is entitled to continue in service by treating him as a teacher. The petitioner has further stated that in the gradation list published by the University in the year 1996, he has been included in the teacher category and Executive Council in its meeting on 20.5.1998 has recommended the matter to the Chancellor to treat the petitioner as a teacher. The petitioner has also made a representation to the Chancellor and finally after a long drawn battle the Chancellor has passed an order on 6.8.1999 recognising the petitioner as a teacher. The University has also passed the consequential order dated 7.8.1999 treating the petitioner as a teacher, however, the impugned order has been issued on 13.5.2008 modifying the earlier order dated 7.8.1999, meaning thereby treating the petitioner once again as a Director of Physical Education. The petitioner has sought quashment of the order dated 13.5.2008 on the ground that he is discharging the duty of a teacher and, therefore, in light of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of P.S. Ram Mohana Rai v. A.P. Agriculture University [ AIR 1997 SC 3433 ], is entitled to continue at par in service like the teachers of the University. 3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents/University and the stand on the University is that the petitioner was appointed as a Director of Physical Education keeping in view the Adhiniyam of 1973 and the statutes as well as Ordinance framed there under. 3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents/University and the stand on the University is that the petitioner was appointed as a Director of Physical Education keeping in view the Adhiniyam of 1973 and the statutes as well as Ordinance framed there under. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner is not a teacher as it defined under section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 and infact is a Director of Physical Education and, therefore, he has not been included within the definition of teacher, hence, the question of granting any benefit to the petitioner to continue in service at par with the teachers does not arise. The respondents have stated that the Director of Physical Education is certainly not a teacher. The process of appointing a teacher is altogether different and in the selection committee constituted for appointing a teacher, a representative of the High Education of State of Madhya Pradesh is a necessary member, whereas no such contingency is required while appointing a Director of Physical Education. The respondents have stated that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and there is a subsequent judgment delivered by this Court in the case of J.N. Vishwavidyalaya v. P.C. Modi [ 2010(1) MPLJ 375 ], wherein in similar circumstances, the Sport Officer was not treated to be a teacher. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [ (2009)13 SCC 635 ], Brijendra Kumar v. JNKVV [ 2011(II) MPWN 42 = 2011(1) MPLJ 589 (DB)], Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General, Indian Council [ (2012)12 SCC 666 ], and University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde [ (2013)10 SCC 519 ], and his contention is that the Director of Physical Education by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a teacher keeping in view the statutory provisions governing the field. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The relevant statutory provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, Statutes and Ordinances, which are necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition reads as under : “(A) Section 3(xx) of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 defines “Teachers” as under : “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 any College or Institution maintained or recognized by the University.” (B) Section 24(x) of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 includes the following as one of the powers of the Executive Council (which is the apex executive body of the University), as far as appointment of ‘teachers’ is concerned : “Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the Statutes, Ordinances and regulations made thereunder, the Executive Council shall have the following powers and perform the following duties, namely : (xx) to institute such Professorship, Readership, Lecturerships or other teaching posts as may be proposed by the Academic Planning and Evaluation Board : Provided that no teaching post shall be instituted without the prior approval of the Commissioner Higher Education. (C) Section 18 of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam : Others Officers : “The appointment of other officers of the University referred to in section 12, shall be made in such manner and the conditions of their services and powers and duties shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations.” In view of section 18, Statute No.20 had been made which reads as under : Statute No.20 : Other Officers of the University -- Conditions of Service, Powers and Duties : (1) In addition to the officers mentioned in clauses (i) to (v) of section 11 of the Adhiniyam, the following shall be the officers of the University : (i) to (iv) -- (v) Director of Physical Education. (2) to (4) -- (5) -- Provided that in case of appointment to the following posts, the Selection Committee shall be constituted in accordance with the provisions contained under section 49(2) of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 : Physical Education : Director. (2) to (4) -- (5) -- Provided that in case of appointment to the following posts, the Selection Committee shall be constituted in accordance with the provisions contained under section 49(2) of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 : Physical Education : Director. (D) Section 35 of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam : Statutes : Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, the statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely : (a) to (c) -- (d) powers and duties of the Registrar, and other officers and employees of the University and the conditions of their services. (e) to (m) -- (n) the emoluments and terms and conditions of service of the officers and emoluments and terms and conditions of service other than pay-scales of teachers of the University paid by the University. In view of the powers conferred under the above mentioned sub-clause (d) and (n) of section 35, the following Statute No.31 was made : Statute No.31 : Conditions of Services for University Employees : (E) Section 49 of the Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 : Appointment of Teaching posts : (1) No person shall be appointed : (i) as a Professor, Reader, Lecturer; or (ii) to any other teaching post of the University paid by the University except on the recommendation of a committee of selection constituted in accordance with sub-section (2). (2) The members of the Committee shall be -- (F) Section 63 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 : Classification of Teachers : (1) “Professor” and “Reader” means respectively teachers appointed by the Executive Council on the scales of pay not lower than that approved for a Professor and a Reader by the University Grants Commission and accepted by the State Government and where the scale of pay approved by the University Grants Commission is higher than that approved by the State Government in this behalf then on the scale of pay as provided by the State Government.” 7. The aforesaid statutory provisions of law makes it very clear that the Director, Physical Education is not included within the meaning of the term teacher as defined under section 3(20) of M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. The aforesaid statutory provisions of law makes it very clear that the Director, Physical Education is not included within the meaning of the term teacher as defined under section 3(20) of M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. Not only this, section 18 deals with other officers of the Vishwavidyalaya and for the post of Director, Physical Education, a selection committee has to be constituted under section 49(2) of M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, meaning thereby the post of Director, Physical Education is altogether a different post, other than the teachers under the statutory provisions as stated aforesaid. The petitioner can by no stretch of imagination be designated as Professor keeping in view the statutory provisions. Merely because the name of the petitioner finds place in the gradation list of teachers, it does not mean that he has been appointed as a teacher and is a teacher of thge University. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel Shri Bagadia that principles of natural justice and fair play has not been followed while issuing the impugned order dated 13.5.2008 (Annexure P-1). This Court is of the considered opinion that the Chancellor of the University does not enjoy extra powers than the powers and duties defined under the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. No statutory provision of law under the M.P.Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 empowers the Chancellor to convert the post of Director, Physical Education to the post of Professor, meaning thereby the initial order passed by the Chancellor itself was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the mistake has been rectified by issuing the impugned order dated 13th May, 2008. Not only this, the principles of natural justice and fair play have to be considered keeping in view the statutory provisions. The petitioner was given full opportunity by this Court to establish that he is a teacher, however, he was failed to do so. There is no straightjacket formula in respect of principles of natural justice and fair play. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order dated 13.5.2008. The matter relating to retirement of Sports Officer in respect of University in the State of Madhya Pradesh at par with the teachers was considered at length by this Court in the case of J.N. Vishwavidyalaya v. P.C. Modi (supra). This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order dated 13.5.2008. The matter relating to retirement of Sports Officer in respect of University in the State of Madhya Pradesh at par with the teachers was considered at length by this Court in the case of J.N. Vishwavidyalaya v. P.C. Modi (supra). The Division Bench of this Court has taken into account the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of P.S. Ram Mohana Rai (supra). Paragraphs 10 to 14 of the judgment delivered in the case of Brejendra Kumar Pathak v. JNKVV (supra), reads as under : “10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.C. Modi (supra), has rightly considered the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra), and Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), and we fully agree with the view taken therein. We are also of the considered opinion that as the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), having explained the previous judgment in the case of R.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra), and having clarified that it was rendered in the light of particular rules in issue, the same was rightly considered by the Division Bench in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), and, therefore, the decision in the case of P.C. Modi (supra), does not require to be reconsidered or referred to a large Bench as submitted bythe learned counsel for the appellant. We are also of the opinion that there is no conflict between the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court. 11. Besides that, it appears that the judgment of the apex Court in case of R.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra), was rendered on 31.7.1997 by a Bench consisting of two Hon’ble Judges, whereas the judgment in State of M.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), was rendered latter, i.e., on 28.7.2009, by a Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges. It is a settled legal position that where there is a conflict of opinion between two decision of the apex Court rendered by the Benches of equal strength, later decision shall prevail. It is a settled legal position that where there is a conflict of opinion between two decision of the apex Court rendered by the Benches of equal strength, later decision shall prevail. Reference may be made to the judgment of the apex Court rendered in Dalbir Singh v. State of M.P. [ (2004)5 SCC 334 ], wherein the Supreme Court in para 11 has approved the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court, relying upon the later judgment where the earlier judgment was in conflict with the later one. Thus, the judgment rendered in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), which was decided on 28.7.2009, will prevail. Besides that the judgment in State of M.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), is of larger Bench as it was headed by three Hon’ble Judges whereas, the judgment in R.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra), was headed by two Hon’ble Judges. 12. In the light of the above, we do not find any error in the judgment/order of the learned Single Judge. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was permitted to continue to continue to work till the age of 61 years and 3 months and, therefore, the respondents be directed not to recover the salary already paid to the appellant for the period of service rendered by him beyond the age of 60 years. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the University fairly submits that the salary already paid to the appellant for the period for which he has worked will not be recovered by the University. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, it is provided that the salary and other benefits already paid to the appellant for the period of service rendered by him beyond the age of 60 years till his continuance shall not be recovered from him. However, for all other purposes, such as fixation of pension and post retiral benefits etc., the appellant would be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years.” 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in service at par with the teachers of the University. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in service at par with the teachers of the University. 9. The apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), again in case of Physical Training Instructor after taking into account the judgment delivered in the case of P.S. Ram Mohana Rao (supra), in paragraphs 25 and 26 has held as under : “25. We may observe that definition of ‘teacher’ contained in section 2(n) of the Andhra 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 Statutes framed by such State. 26. 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 post comes within the definition of teacher as contained in section 2(n). The proposition laid down in that case should not have been automatically extended to other case like the present one, where employees are governed by different sets of rules. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner cannot claim the parity in pay-scale and in respect of retirement age at par with teachers. The apex Court in the case of Hukum Chand Gupta (supra), again dealt with the issue of parity in pay and the paragraph 20 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under : “20. We are also not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant that there can be no distinction in the pay-scales between the employees working at Headquarters and the employees working at the institutional level. It is a matter of record that the employees working at Headquarters are governed by a completely different set of rules. Even the hierarchy of the posts and the channels of promotion are different. It is a matter of record that the employees working at Headquarters are governed by a completely different set of rules. Even the hierarchy of the posts and the channels of promotion are different. Also, merely because any two posts at the Headquarters and the institutional level have the same nomenclature, would not necessarily require that the pay-scales on the two posts should also be the same. In our opinion, the prescription of two different pay-scales would not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work. Such action would not be arbitrary or violate Articles 14, 16 and 39D of the Constitution of India. It is for the employer to categorize the posts and to prescribe the duties of each post. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to be given the same pay-scale. Prescription of pay-scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and qualityof the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the incumbents on different posts. Even though, the two posts may be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every manner. These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or the Pay Commission. Neither the Central Administrative Tribunal nor a writ Court would normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts. The Tribunal or the writ Court would lack the necessary expertise undertake the complex exercise of equation of posts or the pay-scales.” 11. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as the petitioner was appointed on the post of Director of Physical Education, keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and the statute, ordinance framed thereunder, by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a teacher. He is holding the post of Director and has to retire as a Director not as a Teacher. The writ petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. .............