ORDER K.B.K. Vasuki, J. 1. W.P.(MD). No. 11815 of 2010 filed by Manonmaniam Sundaranaar Faculty Association represented by its President and WP.(MD). No. 1731 of 2011 filed by the President of the Association as above referred to by name Dr. M. Arunachalam in his individual capacity are against the absorption of the second respondent Dr. X. Rosary Mary on permanent basis as Director, Department of Youth Welfare in the first respondent University. WP.(MD). No. 9193 of 2012 is filed by Dr. X. Rosary Mary, Director, Department of Youth Welfare Manonmanian Sundaranar University against the order of the respondent university in treating her as non teaching staff and in retiring her at the age of 58 years and for issuing consequential direction to the first respondent/University to allow the petitioner to continue in service upto 60 years which is the age of superannuation for the teaching staff. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners and the respondents in the above three writ petitions are referred to as Association, Professor and Director of the Department and respondent/University. 2. The facts which led to the filing of above three writ petitions for the reliefs as stated supra, are as follows : "Dr. X. Rosary Mary possessing M.Sc., M.Phil and Ph.D degree in Botany before her appointment as Director in the Department of Youth Welfare in the first respondent/University, served as Reader in Botany in St. Marys College, Tuticorin for more than 31 years. The Department of Youth Welfare is one of the 26 departments functioning in the respondent University and was established in the year 1990. The post of Director, Department of Youth Welfare fell vacant and the University issued notification on 15.06.2006 calling for applications through advertisement in leading dailies viz., Hindu, Dinathanthi, Dinamani, Dinakaran and Dinamalar for appointment to the said post. Out of total applications received by the University, two application one of them being that of the petitioner was found eligible as per the qualification prescribed under the advertisement. As the recruitment was through selection committee and as the recruitment was by the syndicate from the panel recommended by the selection committee constituted for the said purpose, Dr. Rosary Mary appeared before the committee constituting the Vice-Chancellor as its Chairman, two syndicate members and one non syndicate member and the Registrar of the University. Dr. As the recruitment was through selection committee and as the recruitment was by the syndicate from the panel recommended by the selection committee constituted for the said purpose, Dr. Rosary Mary appeared before the committee constituting the Vice-Chancellor as its Chairman, two syndicate members and one non syndicate member and the Registrar of the University. Dr. Rosary Mary was selected and appointed as Director in the Department of Youth Welfare for a period of three years vide syndicate resolution dated 29.01.2006 and she joined duty on 05.01.2007. While she was serving as Director of Youth Welfare a doubt arose as to whether the Department is academic or non-academic and vacation or non-vacation. As such, the Director made a representation to the University and as per the decision taken by the Syndicate, the Department of Youth Welfare was termed as non-vacation academic Department and the Director was also given maximum of one month leave with deduction of Earned leave. During 2008 the University Syndicate passed a resolution on 05.02.2008 to convert the post of Director from tenure post to a regular post and permanently absorbed Dr. Rosary Mary as Director on permanent basis with effect from 05.01.2008. In pursuance of the same the State Government also issued G.O. cancelling her lien in St. Marys college, Tuticorin with effect from 04.07.2007 and permitted St. Marys college to transfer all her service benefits to the University and ordered payment of all retirement benefits including pension by the respondent University." 3. While so, the Director by her representation dated 03.08.2010 requested to treat the petitioner as professor and to fix her scale of pay on par with the University professor. The respondent/University syndicate after considering the same, passed a resolution to place the Director in the pay scale admissible for the post of professor. The resolution dated 05.02.2008 thereby converting the tenure post of Director as a regular post and absorbing the Director on permanent basis and the resolution dated 17.08.2010 thereby fixing the pay scale of the Director on par with that of the professor were challenged in W.P. No. (MD). 11815 of 2010 by the Association. The same was followed by another writ petition in WP. No. (MD). 1731 of 2011 by Dr. M. Arunachalam in his individual capacity for issuing quo warranto requiring the Director to show cause under what authority she was holding the office of Director. 11815 of 2010 by the Association. The same was followed by another writ petition in WP. No. (MD). 1731 of 2011 by Dr. M. Arunachalam in his individual capacity for issuing quo warranto requiring the Director to show cause under what authority she was holding the office of Director. Pending writ petition the Director with the permission of the University participated in International Exchange Workshop at Lindau, Germany and after obtaining Earned Leave for 13 days from 18.04.2012 to 30.04.2012 she also visited some other universities in her personal capacity. Thereafter, summer vacation intervened between 01.05.2012 to 31.05.2012. After summer vacation was over while the Director was getting ready to report for duty on 01.06.2012. She was served with the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 stating that she had been relieved from service as Director w.e.f. 31.05.2012 on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years. Questioning the same, the Director has come forward with WP. No. (MD). 9193 of 2012 for the relief as stated supra. Thus the issue involved in the first two writ petitions is regarding the conversion of the post of Director into regular post and absorption of the incumbent on permanent basis through two resolutions of the Syndicate and the issue involved in the third writ petition is as to whether the post of Director of Youth Welfare is academic or non-academic. 4. The main contentions raised by the petitioner/association and the petitioner/professor in the first two writ petitions are that the post having been advertised as tenure post, the same cannot be converted into regular post by way of any resolution for the purpose of accommodating the existing Director on permanent basis. It is their contention that as the method of recruitment for the temporary post and the permanent post being different and as the recruitment to the regular post involves wide publicity inviting applications from all eligible candidates and as the selection of Dr. Rosary Mary as Director was on temporary basis without following the procedure and as her appointment was in violation of the prescribed norms, the question of absorbing her on permanent basis does not arise herein. Rosary Mary as Director was on temporary basis without following the procedure and as her appointment was in violation of the prescribed norms, the question of absorbing her on permanent basis does not arise herein. It is also their contention that the post of Director, which was originally advertised as term post after having been converted as regular/permanent post fresh selection ought to have been made in accordance with the procedure laid down through wide publicity and through selection and on the failure to do so, the absorption of then existing Director on permanent basis is contrary to law and in violation of the well settled legal principles and the same deprived the similarly placed persons of their opportunity to compete for the selection. 5. Both the respondent University and Dr. Rosary Mary who were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in the first two writ petitions would seriously oppose the reliefs sought for therein. First of all, they challenged the locus standi of the association to maintain WP. No. (MD). 11815 of 2010 filed against syndicate resolutions dated 05.02.2008 and 17.08.2010. The reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are also challenged on the ground of delay and laches. It is their further contention that Dr. Rosary Mary is fully qualified to the post of Director and the vacancy was duly advertised in the leading dailies and the selection through the selection committee was made on the basis of merits after assessing the qualification, ability, experience and overall suitability of the candidates who appeared before the selection committee and the selection made by the selection committee was also approved by the Syndicate. It is also their contention that the appointment of Dr. Rosary Mary as Director did not involve violation of any provisions of the statute and she was not appointed as Professor, but her pay was only fixed on par with the Professor by the Syndicate in exercise of the authority vested on them under the statute. 6. Regarding the relief sought for in WP. No. (MD). Rosary Mary as Director did not involve violation of any provisions of the statute and she was not appointed as Professor, but her pay was only fixed on par with the Professor by the Syndicate in exercise of the authority vested on them under the statute. 6. Regarding the relief sought for in WP. No. (MD). 9193 of 2012 the Director has vehemently contented that the Director of Youth Welfare Department, having regard to the nature of the duties performed and the nature of the activities carried on, shall be treated only as academic Department and the same has been all along treated as non vacation academic Department and the post of Director was also treated as one of the faculty members/teaching staff by the University as evident from various University documents. As such, the decision taken by the University to retire her at the age of 58 years by treating the post as non-academic administrative one is without basis and contrary to their own documents. 7. The respondent/University has in the WP. No. 9193 of 2012 filed by Dr. Rosary Mary vehemently opposed the relief by reiterating their stand that it is only non vacation academic department and the nature of the activities of the department is only to arrange cultural and extra curricular programmes without involving any teaching work and without involving any training or giving instructions either to the students or to the teaching community. It is also their case that as the selection committee, who selected the petitioner consisted of members as that of the same selection committee constituted for the purpose of selecting non teaching staff and the mode of recruitment is in accordance with the procedure applicable for non teaching staff the staff cannot be permitted to claim any status of teaching staff. 8. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 9. From the facts made available herein it is seen that Dr. X. Rosary Mary is fully qualified to the post of Director of Youth Welfare department. When the post fell vacant, due advertisement was given in various daily issues inviting applications and the selection was made through selection committee and the recommendation made by the selection committee was duly approved by the University Syndicate. X. Rosary Mary is fully qualified to the post of Director of Youth Welfare department. When the post fell vacant, due advertisement was given in various daily issues inviting applications and the selection was made through selection committee and the recommendation made by the selection committee was duly approved by the University Syndicate. What was challenged in the first two writ petitions is conversion of the post which according to the writ petitioners is term post, as permanent one and absorption of Dr. Rosary Mary as Director on permanent basis in the same regular post and fixation of her salary on par with that of the post of professor. Before going into the claim made in the writ petitions that the resolutions passed are illegal and are in violation of the procedure laid down under the statute, the locus standi of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University faculty association who is the writ petitioner in WP. No. (MD). 11815 of 2010 to maintain one such writ petition for the relief stated therein, is to be necessarily considered. 10. The maintainability of the writ petition can be straight away answered by applying the principle laid down by our High Court in the judgments reported in (i) Tamil Nadu' Panchayat Development Officers Association, Madras v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Madras and Others AIR 1989 MAD 224 FB : (1989) 1 MLJ 255 ; and (ii) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and Another v. Tamil Nadu Kudineer Vadikal Variya Oozhiyar Sangam, Chidambaranar District (CITU), 2010 (2) CWC 740 DB : LNIND 2010 BMM 976. In the cases as above cited, the Full Bench and Division Bench of our High Court are of the categorical view that an unregistered association cannot maintain the writ petition and the association has no fundamental right to maintain Writ petition and it is for the affected individual to work out the remedy in the manner known to law and not for any association. The Division Bench of our High Court has in the judgment cited supra referred to the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Tamilaga Asiryar Kootani represented by its General Secretary V. Annamalai v. Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary LNIND 2005 MAD 616 : (2005) 3 MLJ 252 and the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mahinder Kumar Gupta and Others v. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (1995) 1 SCC 85 : LNIND 1994 SC 885 : (1995) 1 MLJ 64 and by applying the views of the Supreme Court and Division Bench of our High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the association with liberty given to the individual employee to file separate case, if the individual is affected in any manner by the impugned GO. 11. In view of the above stated legal position the relief sought for in WP No. (MD) 11815 of 2010 deserves no merits and consideration on the ground of maintainability of the writ petition. 12. However, the Vice President of the Association by name Dr. Arunachalam is the petitioner in his individual capacity in WP. No. (MD). 1731 of 2011 which is one for issuing quo warranto thereby directing the second respondent individual Dr. Rosary Mary to show cause under what authority she was holding the office of the Director. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity solely on the ground that the post of Director of Youth Welfare is a tenure post and Dr. Rosary Mary appointed to that post is on temporary basis and not in accordance with the procedure, as such, her absorption without duly advertising the vacancy and duly calling for the application would render her selection to be illegal and the person comes into the back door is not entitled to enjoy the benefit of regularisation on permanent basis. 13. It is true that in the advertisement calling for application from suitable candidates for the post of Director, the term of appointment was mentioned as for period of three years. It is not stated so, in the advertisement issued in Dinamalar for filling up the vacancy for the same post during 1996. The appointment to the teaching and non teaching staff is governed by the relevant sections in the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act (herein after shortly referred to as University Act). It is not stated so, in the advertisement issued in Dinamalar for filling up the vacancy for the same post during 1996. The appointment to the teaching and non teaching staff is governed by the relevant sections in the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act (herein after shortly referred to as University Act). Chapter XVII consists of Statutes 1 to 17 Appendix - 1 of the Act provides for method of recruitment and qualifications prescribed for various teaching and non teaching posts in the University. Appendix - 2 provides for method of recruitment, qualification and experience for other category of employees. Serial No. 27 of Appendix - 2 dealt with the category of Youth Welfare Director as per which the method of recruitment is by Direct recruitment and qualification prescribed are (i) holding a post not below the rank of Reader; (ii) Ph.D will be preferable; (iii) creditable community youth service; and (iv) Age 50 to 55 years. It is relevant to mention at this juncture that the post of Reader is recognised as one of the teaching posts in the University under Appendix-1. It is no where mentioned in the Statute that the Youth Welfare Department is the term/tenure post. That is how it appears to have been treated in the 1996 advertisement, what is only stated in 2006 advertisement that is that the term is for three years. There is absolutely no other material on record to show that it is the term post. Whatever be Dr. Rosary Mary was initially appointed for three years. 14. As far as the impugned resolution dated 05.02.2008 regarding conversion of the tenure post as permanent post is concerned when the post is under the Statute only regular post and not term post, the question of conversion does not arise herein. Even otherwise, the Syndicate under Section 24-A is empowered to regulate and determine all matters concerning with the University in accordance with this Act, the Statute, the ordinances and regulations and to appoint the University lecturers, Readers, Professors and Teachers of the University, fix their emoluments, and define their duties and conditions of the service and provide for filling up of temporary vacancies and to make ordinances specifying the mode of appointment of administrative and other similar posts and to fix duties and condition for services and for providing temporary vacancies. 15. 15. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of the petitioner having been made through wide publicity and by inviting applications from suitable candidates and the petitioner having possessed all the qualifications for being appointed as Director and the selection having been made by the selection committee and approved by the Syndicate, the mode of selection of Dr. Rosary Mary cannot be held to be in violation of any statutory norms or procedure so as to declare it as illegal and unlawful. Further having regard to the powers of the syndicate to convert the post of the Director from tenure post to a regular post and absorption of the Director on permanent basis the absorption of the existing Director on permanent basis does not suffer from any illegality. At the best, it can be an irregularity and such irregularity is ratified by the competent authority i.e., Syndicate by its resolution dated 05.02.2008 as such the petitioner in WP. No. (MD). 1731 of 2011 cannot be permitted to raise any grievance in this regard. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in support of his contention raised in WP. No. (MD). 1731 of 2011 cited the following authorities of the Supreme Court and our High Court in support of the contention raised herein (i) K. Shekar V. Indiramma and Others AIR 2002 SC 1230 : (2002) 3 SCC 586 : LNIND 2002 SC 148; (ii) A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others AIR 2004 SC 4504 : (2004) 7 SCC 112 : LNIND 2004 SC 721 : 2004-III-LLJ-780 : (2005) 1 MLJ 6; (iii) State of Maharastra v. Shashikant S. Pujari and Others AIR 2007 SC 373 : (2006) 13 SCC 175 : LNIND 2006 SC 1023; and (iv) D. Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 2012 (2) CTC 177 : LNIND 2012 MAD 519. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in K. Shekar v. Indiramma and Others (supra) was of the view that any change regarding the nature of the post advertised long ago thereby converting the temporary one into permanent by way of corrigendum is not proper and the post should have been re-advertised and the absence of re-advertisement necessarily deprived the person who could have applied so as to give fair notice to all prospective candidates regarding the nature of the vacancy to be filled. The issue dealt with in other cases, cited above was regularisation of the service of the irregular appointees whose appointment was made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory provision and in essence of ignorance of qualification. 17. In my considered view, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case, for the following reasons : Here is the case wherein the post is under the Statute not specified as term post. It was also not treated so till 2006 advertisement. Further, the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post and the selection was also made through selection committee as approved by the Syndicate. Further, the syndicate is the competent authority to define the duties and conditions of service and the resolution dated 05.02.2008 impugned herein is admittedly duly passed by the syndicate. That being so, the objection raised against the validity of Syndicate resolution dated 05.02.2008 deserves no merits and acceptance. 18. As far as the resolution dated 17.08.2010 is concerned, the Syndicate has in and under which, not upgraded the post of Director to the post of professor, but only fixed the pay scale on par with the post of professor. As already referred to, the Syndicate is the competent authority empowered to fix up the emoluments of teaching and non teaching staff. As such, the fixation of pay scale of the Director on par with the post of Professor by the competent authority cannot be questioned herein. Even otherwise, both the resolutions are passed during 2008 and 2010 and while in pursuance of the resolution dated 05.02.2008 Dr. Rosary Mary was able to continue in the post of Director, she started drawing the higher salary equivalent to the post of Professor from 2010 resolution. Even otherwise, both the resolutions are passed during 2008 and 2010 and while in pursuance of the resolution dated 05.02.2008 Dr. Rosary Mary was able to continue in the post of Director, she started drawing the higher salary equivalent to the post of Professor from 2010 resolution. Whereas, the writ petition challenging the same came to be filed only after three years from the date of the first resolution and nearly one year after the second resolution. The same petitioner having approached this court by way of WP. No. (MD). 11815 of 2010 against the same resolutions, did not think it fit to file the writ of quo warranto either simultaneously or within the reasonable time. The petitioner has approached this Court by way second writ petition in different capacity more or less for the same relief. In my considered view, such conduct of the petitioner appears to be lacking in bonafide. 19. Further, this court is by applying the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another v. S.D. Halegkar and Others (1993) 3 SCC 591 : 1993-II-LLJ-1159 is not inclined to interfere with the selection at this later stage. In the case referred to above the appointment of the first respondent was in 1981, the first respondent did not have the requisite academic qualification but he continue to hold the post for nearly 12 years. The first respondent has not at the time of his selection, projected his qualification other than what he possessed, as such, he was not responsible for want of qualification for long time as it is the selection committee who for some reason had thought it fit to choose him for the said post. The second respondent/Director of Education also chose to acquiescence in the appointment. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court was of the view that illegality if any was committed by the selection committee and the second respondent and they are alone to be blamed for the same and it would be inequitous to make the first respondent to suffer for the same. The Supreme Court was also of the view that the post of the Principal in the private school though aided, is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself impelled to interfere with the appointment by way of writ of quo warranto. The Supreme Court was also of the view that the post of the Principal in the private school though aided, is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself impelled to interfere with the appointment by way of writ of quo warranto. The Supreme Court was also of the view that infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifications of the incumbent is also not that grave taking into consideration all other relevant facts. Here also the conversion and absorption of Dr. Rosary Mary is by the Syndicate and the Director is also allowed to continue for more than three years before filing the date of writ petition through the resolution passed by the syndicate and she has also irrespective of retirement age as 58 or 60 years, attained the age of superannuation. As such, this court applying the view of the Supreme Court is only inclined to reject the writ petition. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP. No. (MD). 9193 of 2012 has drawn the attention of this Court to the observation of learned brother judge in the order dated 28.04.2011 made in M.P. Nos. 2 to 4 of 2010 in W.P. No. (MD). 11815 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 in W.P. No. (MD). 1731 of 2010. The learned brother judge has in para 13 dealt with the delay and laches and inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioners in the above two writ petitions challenging the resolutions. Viewing from any angle, the petitioner is disentitled to get any relief in WP. No. (MD). 1731 of 2011. 20. The issue involved in W.P. No. (MD). 9193 of 2012 is as to whether the post of Director is teaching/academic or non teaching/non-academic in nature. According to the petitioner therein, the department is non vacation academic and the Director of the department is also academician and no academic department can be manned by non academician and the department as well as the post of Director is recognised by the University as academic and faculty member respectively in the records and reports and in that event, the retirement age of teaching staff is not 58 years but 60 years, as such, the impugned order retiring her at the age of 58 years is arbitrary and improper. According to the University, the selection of the petitioner is by the selection committee constituted for the purpose of selecting non teaching staff and the nature and duties and activities carried on in the department are without any teaching work, as such, the post is only non teaching/administrative in nature, though the department is academic in nature. It is no doubt true that the University Act does not specifically say whether the Director Youth Welfare is teaching or non teaching in nature. Appendix-1 of University Act refers to the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer as teaching staff and Registrar and Controller of Examination are non teaching staff whereas the post of Director Youth Welfare is one of the category of employees covered under Appendix-2. 21. There is separate selection committee for appointment to the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer and Librarian. Out of the posts as above referred to, the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer are covered under teaching staff under Appendix-I. The post of Librarian is covered under other category of employee under Appendix-II. The selection committee in respect of administrative and other non teaching staff is prescribed under Statute-4. While the selection committee for the post of Professor, Assistant Professor, Reader, Lecturer and Librarian consist of Vice-Chancellor, a nominee of the Chancellor, a nominee of the Government, and the persons specified in the corresponding entry and other persons in column 2 of the table given under Section 44(2) of the Selection Committee for non teaching/administrative staff consist of Vice chancellor, two Syndicate members, external members other than Syndicate member and Registrar. The retirement age of employee of classes A, B and C is at the age of 58 years in respect of non teaching staff and the retirement of Employees of Class-D and teaching staff is at the age of 60 years. 22. Though the post of the Director is under the Act of Statutes not specifically mentioned to be teaching staff, the Syndicate has in the resolution dated 08.05.2007 declared the Department of Youth Welfare as non vacation academic department. The Syndicate has shown the Department as Academic Department in 6th Annual Report July 1996 to June 1997, 14th Annual Report July 2004 to June 2005. Clause 20 of the Annual Quality Assurance Report 2009-2010 of the University has included the post of Director Youth Welfare Department as one among the teaching staff. The Syndicate has shown the Department as Academic Department in 6th Annual Report July 1996 to June 1997, 14th Annual Report July 2004 to June 2005. Clause 20 of the Annual Quality Assurance Report 2009-2010 of the University has included the post of Director Youth Welfare Department as one among the teaching staff. Under Clause 20 the total number of teaching staff in various posts of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Director of Youth Welfare Department, Librarian, Deputy Librarian and Assistant Librarian are totally 147 and other staffs working in the administrative section comes to 294. It is specifically mentioned in Clause 20 that the Director Youth Welfare Department is one of teaching staff. Dr. Rosary Mary, Director of Youth Welfare Department is shown as one of the faculty members in the University Information Directory relating to 2008 - 2009 and in the respondent University website dated 22.06.2012 on Department of Youth Welfare and list of teaching staff. With regard to the nature of the activities stated therein, the Youth Welfare Department is entrusted with the task of coordinating and extending all kinds of youth related activities at the colleges and University Department and it has to organize placement programmes and train the teacher to, inturn, train the students to prepare themselves. It is also stated therein that the department is doing extension activities in the form of teaching and learning in the following areas and conducting work shops/seminars on personal effectiveness, Career Guidance, Leadership, Gender Awareness, Health Awareness, Human Rights, Capacity Building, Soft Skills, Model Youth Parliament, Interview Techniques, Life skills Education, Change & Positive attitude, Decision making & problem solving and Effective Communication. It is further stated that the University Students Advisory Bureau (USAB) tries to provide counseling to the students of the University Departments. In other website regarding list of teaching staff as on 01.05.2010 the Director Department of Youth Welfare is shown as one of the teaching staff. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also drawn the attention of this Court to the nature of the activities carried on by the Youth Welfare Department as detailed in the representation sent by one Nagarajan, Conveners' Committee, Dr. M. Edwin Gnanadhas, Associate Professor in Commerce, Scott Christian College (Autonomous), Nagercoil. T. Paulpandian, Member, Syndicate/respondent University and the petitioner Dr. Rosary Mary. M. Edwin Gnanadhas, Associate Professor in Commerce, Scott Christian College (Autonomous), Nagercoil. T. Paulpandian, Member, Syndicate/respondent University and the petitioner Dr. Rosary Mary. The particulars mentioned therein would reveal that the programmes conducted by the Department include workshop student activities, programmer for training for the development of students, center for training and skill development, seminars, conferences and workshops, equipment and implementation, coaching classes for competitive exams, training for trainers, career guidance, counseling and placement, which can be easily termed as curricular activities. The respondent/University except relying on the constitution of the selection committee, is unable to explain the circumstances under which the Director, Department of Youth Welfare is treated as one of the faculty members and teaching staff in the reports relating to the University submitted to various authorities. As the selection committee is constituted by the University Syndicate without any involvement on the part of the petitioner in any manner, the nature of the post cannot be decided solely on the basis of constitution of selection committee. 24. Considering the conduct of the University in treating her as one of the faculty members for all other practical purposes, the University at this stage cannot be permitted to raise any dispute regarding the nature of the post whether academic or non academic. When the department is recognised as academic the Director heading the same has to be equally recognised as academic staff and not otherwise. It is also relevant to refer at this juncture to the definition of the expression teacher and the teacher of the University in the definition Section under the University Act 2(m)(n) as per which "teacher" means other person giving instruction in University Colleges or laboratories etc., Section 2(o) says teachers of the University means persons appointed by the University to give instruction on its behalf. If the nature of the activities carried on by the department if viewed in the light of the definition of teacher under the University Act, it will undoubtedly lead to an inference that the Director indulging in activities thereby imparting educational instructions on various aspects to the teachers and students has to be necessarily treated as academic staff and not otherwise. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also at this juncture drawn the attention of this court to yet another factor which requires due consideration. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also at this juncture drawn the attention of this court to yet another factor which requires due consideration. Had it been true that the Director had been all along treated as non teaching staff, the process for retiring her at the age of 58 years would have been commenced reasonably in advance. Whereas in the present case, the Director was till 31.05.2012 allowed to participate in other programme in the seminars abroad and was allowed to avail the holidays to visit other Universities and she was served with the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 retiring her at the age of 58 years and the same was served in the morning hours on 01.06.2012, the date on which she is due to retire at the age of 58 years. Such conduct appears to be quite unnatural. If it is viewed, in the light of the conduct of the University in treating her as faculty member in the annual meet, telephone directory and website as above referred to, it would reiterate the stand taken by the petitioner that the University has all along been treating the same post as teaching staff. 26. It is also to be noted herein that the University thought it fit to raise the issue in this regard only on 26.05.2012 and approached one M/s. Ajmal Associates for getting legal opinion in this regard and legal opinion obtained to the effect that the post of Director is non teaching one was placed before the Convener committee consisting of Law Secretary and others. From the records enclosed at pages 102 to 107 of the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner on 27.06.2012, it is seen that the office note seeking approval for accepting the legal opinion and for issuing relieving order etc., is approved by the Law Secretary and other members of the Convener Committee not on one and the same date but on different dates through circulation. The law secretary has in his approval note recommended for her reappointment for further period. The records would further disclose that after obtaining the office note approved by the Law Secretary, the office note was not placed before the other members of the Convener committee and without doing so, the relieving order was made ready on 31.05.2012 and the petitioner Dr. The records would further disclose that after obtaining the office note approved by the Law Secretary, the office note was not placed before the other members of the Convener committee and without doing so, the relieving order was made ready on 31.05.2012 and the petitioner Dr. Rosary Mary was served with relieving order in the morning hours on 01.06.2012, that too hurriedly at her residence. The office note was by way of circulation sent to the other members one day after the relieving order served on her and one of the members of the Convener committee Nagarajan on his endorsement dated 02.06.2012 clearly stated that as the department is declared as academic by the Syndicate, the nature of the post should be decided only by the Syndicate and therefore the matter may be referred before the Syndicate for appropriate decision. However, the matter was for the reasons best known to the respondent/university not referred to the Syndicate who is the competent authority to decide the issue. There is absolutely no explanation offered on the side of the respondent/University for not obtaining the syndicate approval on such an important issue. As rightly pointed out by one of the members of the convener committee when the department is declared as academic by the Syndicate. The Syndicate is the competent authority to decide nature of the post of the Director. Whereas, the decision to treat the post as non academic is taken on the basis of the legal opinion and on the basis of the approval of the office note by Law Secretary/one of the members of the Convener committee. The failure to do so and the manner in which the decision taken and approved and having with which the relieving order issued on the basis of the same appears to be biased, arbitrary without jurisdiction and in violation of the relevant provisions under the statute. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP. No. (MD). 9193 of 2012 has also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Dr. M.N.C. Bose, Director of Students Service, University of Kerala v. University of Kerala and Others 2012 SCC online Kerala 10654 dealing with the nature of the duties performed by the Director of the Student Service and Department of Youth Welfare, University of Kerala which is identical with that of the Director of Youth Welfare. M.N.C. Bose, Director of Students Service, University of Kerala v. University of Kerala and Others 2012 SCC online Kerala 10654 dealing with the nature of the duties performed by the Director of the Student Service and Department of Youth Welfare, University of Kerala which is identical with that of the Director of Youth Welfare. When the question arose before the Supreme Court as to whether the post in question is teaching or non teaching staff, the Supreme Court, having regard to the various activities similar to that of the activities carried out by the Director, Youth Welfare Department laid down that the post would answer 'such other persons imparting instructions' included in the definition of teacher. The Supreme Court has negatived the contention raised on the side of the University Standing Counsel that a teacher must be one imparting instructions in a course of study or research and any person imparting instructions is a teacher and as per the definition, the post of Director Students Services should be one which is designed to impart instructions to students of the Universities. Such observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and applying the same view the Director, Youth Welfare Department falls within the definition of teacher and if that is so the retirement age shall be 60 years and not 58 years. As the petitioner now attained the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years she should have been treated as having continued as Director upto the age of 60 years and is entitled to get other attendant benefits. 28. Viewing from any angle, the impugned order stands vitiated and the post having been all along recognised as academic in nature, it is but appropriate to allow the petitioner to continue up to the age of 60 years with all other attendant benefits and the relief sought for in the writ petition in WP. No. (MD). 9193 of 2012 is accordingly granted. 29. In the result, the W.P. Nos. (MD). 11815 of 2010 and 1731 of 2011 are dismissed. In the result, WP. No. (MD). 9193 of 2012 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with further direction issued to the respondent/University to treat the petitioner as teaching staff and to treat her continued in service as Director upto 60 years with all attendant benefits including retirement-cum-pensionary benefits. 11815 of 2010 and 1731 of 2011 are dismissed. In the result, WP. No. (MD). 9193 of 2012 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with further direction issued to the respondent/University to treat the petitioner as teaching staff and to treat her continued in service as Director upto 60 years with all attendant benefits including retirement-cum-pensionary benefits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.