JUDGMENT : 1. The issue which arises in this case is whether a Leturer (Non-UGC) is not a 'teacher' in the University and whether she is not entitled to continue till the age of 60, which is the retirement age of teachers of the University, as provided in Section 31(3) of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short). 2. The petitioner, who is a Lecturer in Mohiniyattam in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (hereinafter referred to as `the University' for short), is aggrieved by the decision of the Syndicate on item no.22 in its 156th meeting held on 10.11.2016 whereby the retirement age of Lecturers (non UGC) was fixed as 56 years. Ext.P8 is a consequential order passed by the University on the basis of the said decision. 3. The petitioner commenced her service in the University as a Tutor on appointment as per Ext.P1 order dated 09.12.1997. On the basis of the decision taken by the syndicate on 17.6.2011, the University, as per Ext.P3 order dated 26.03.2011, re-designated the tutors including the petitioner as Lecturers(Non- UGC) in the scale of pay of Rs.6675-10550 with effect from the date of their joining. The petitioner was accordingly re-designated as Lecturer (Non-UGC) in Mohiniyattam with effect from 10.12.1997. 4. The retirement age of the teachers of the University is 60 years as per Section 31(3) of the Act and Statute 10 of the Sree Sankaracharya University Statutes, 1997 ('Statutes' for short). But the Syndicate in its meeting held on 10.11.2016 decided to fix the retirement age of Lecturer (Non-UGC) at 56 years. The Vice Chancellor thereupon accorded sanction for implementing the said decision and the University issued Ext.P8 order accordingly. 5. The petitioner is attaining the age of 56 on 24.02.2017 and she has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 decision of the syndicate and Ext.P8 order of the University. 6. According to the petitioner, she is a teacher who is governed by Section 31(3) of the Act and Statute 10 in respect of retirement age, according to which she can continue upto 60 years. The learned Senior Counsel Smt. V.P. Seemandini submits that the decision of syndicate is without authority and no power is conferred on the syndicate to alter the retirement age contrary to what is provided in the Act. The learned Senior Counsel Smt. V.P. Seemandini submits that the decision of syndicate is without authority and no power is conferred on the syndicate to alter the retirement age contrary to what is provided in the Act. It is pointed out that appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with Ext.P3 'Sree Sankaracharya University Regulations, 1997' ('Regulations' for short), framed under Section 14(2) of Chapter IV of the Act. The qualification for appointment to teaching posts in the University are governed by these Regulations. Part I deals with qualification for teaching posts in general subjects and Part II deals with teaching posts in traditional subjects /fine arts (Vastuvidya, Music, Painting,, Mural Painting, Theatre, Mohiniyattam, Bharathanatyam, etc.). Instructor/Tutor/Demonstrator in the subjects carpentry/mural painting, sculpture, Darusilpa, theatre, dance etc, come under category A. The qualification for the said posts in category A are: Essential: (i) Good traditional knowledge in the subject concerned, (ii) teaching experience in approved institutions. Desirable: degree/diploma from approved institutions in the concerned subject. Category B is Lecturer with qualifications as in the case of Lecturer in general subjects. 7. Statute 10 of the Statutes, 1997 also provides that the age of retirement of teachers of the University shall be 60 years. 8. Statute 7 of Part II, Chapter IV of the Statutes provides that qualification, method of recruitment and scale of pay of the various posts of non-teaching staff of the University shall be such as in the schedule. The schedule contains the posts - from Registrar to Driver in non-teaching service, posts in Library service and Engineering Service. However it does not contain the post of Lecturer (Non-UGC). Under Section 14 of the Act, the powers of syndicate provided therein is subject to the provisions in the Act. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the decision of the Syndicate in Ext.P6, which runs contrary to Section 31, is without jurisdiction. 9. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that going by the provisions contained in the Act, Statute or Regulations, the retirement age of the petitioner is as prescribed in Section 31 i.e. 60 years and the syndicate does not have any authority to alter the age of retirement, as long as the petitioner continues to be a teacher. 10. 9. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that going by the provisions contained in the Act, Statute or Regulations, the retirement age of the petitioner is as prescribed in Section 31 i.e. 60 years and the syndicate does not have any authority to alter the age of retirement, as long as the petitioner continues to be a teacher. 10. The University has filed a counter affidavit stating the following: The petitioner was appointed for engaging classes in Pre-Degree level foundation courses of the University; when Government de-linked Pre-Degree from the Colleges, the University stopped these courses; petitioner and other Tutors were directed to acquire higher qualification for which they were granted leave under Rule 91 of Part I KSR. Those who acquired qualifications in tune with UGC Regulations were re-designated as Assistant Professor. But the petitioner did not acquire any qualification. According to the University, a Tutor does not come under the definition of teacher under Section 2(t); a person is eligible for appointment as teacher only as per the UGC Act and Regulations. As per Statute 5 of Chapter III of the Statutes, a person can be appointed as teacher only if he is having the qualifications as prescribed in the UGC Regulations issued from time to time. Therefore, only a teacher who fulfills the minimum qualification prescribed for recruitment can be appointed; qualification for appointment of teachers is as prescribed in the UGC Regulations on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers, other academic staffs in Universities and colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010 [Ext R2(a)]. Tutors/Lecturers (non UGC) will not come under the definition of “teacher” who is entitled to continue till the age of 60. The University further states that the petitioner had earlier approached this court in W.P(c).No.39426 of 2015 in which she claimed UGC scale of pay. By Ext.R2(b) judgment dated 14.12.2016 this court rejected her claim seeing that she did not have the qualification as prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2010. Therefore, when this court in Ext.R2(b) judgment held that she is not qualified as per the UGC Regulations, she cannot be considered to be a teacher as defined under the Act or statute. It is further stated that the petitioner and other Lecturers (non UGC) are given the pay scale applicable to the employees of State Government. Therefore, when this court in Ext.R2(b) judgment held that she is not qualified as per the UGC Regulations, she cannot be considered to be a teacher as defined under the Act or statute. It is further stated that the petitioner and other Lecturers (non UGC) are given the pay scale applicable to the employees of State Government. As in the case of University employees, the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the provisions contained in the KSR & KS&SSR and she has been granted grade promotions on completion of 8 years and 15 years of service. Time bound higher grade promotions are not applicable to teachers of Universities and they are granted career advancement promotion under the UGC Scheme. It is further stated that in order to seek the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 31(3), Section 2(2) and for continuing till she attains the age of 60, the petitioner should have acquired the qualification for appointment as teacher under the UGC Regulations. It is further stated that the Government re-designated the Tutors as Lecturer (non UGC) and allowed them to continue in relaxation of the UGC Regulations and they cannot take advantage of such a concession. 11. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Smt. V.P. Seemandini for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Shri Prasanth S. for the University. 12. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgments of this court in Sivasankara Kaimal v. University of Calicut [ 2003 (1) KLT 146 ], Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Joseph James [2005(4) KLT 555] and P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University [ AIR 1997 SC 3433 in support of her contention. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgments in Gopinathan Pillai, P. (Dr.) v. University of Kerala and Ors. [ILR 2016 (3) Kerala 677] and the judgment in W.A.No.1283 of 2016. the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [ (2009) 13 SCC 635 ] also was relied on. 13. I have considered the contentions on either side. The question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. In case she is a teacher her retirement age is 60 years. 14. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [ (2009) 13 SCC 635 ] also was relied on. 13. I have considered the contentions on either side. The question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. In case she is a teacher her retirement age is 60 years. 14. Teacher is defined under Section 2(t) of the Act as follows: “teacher” means a Professor, Reader or such other person appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research in the University and includes any other person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher.” There is no dispute over the fact that the petitioner is a Lecturer and she continues to impart instructions in Mohiniyattam, which is a subject of study in the University. As per Statute 5, Chapter IV of the Statutes “No person shall be eligible for appointment as teacher of the University unless he/she possesses such qualification as may be prescribed in the UGC Regulations issued from time to time. Till the amendment ordered in gazette notification dated 18.2.2007, the Statute 5 provided that qualification for appointment should be as those prescribed in the Regulations issued by the University. 15. However the definition of teacher continues to be the same. Statute 10 of the Statutes also continues to be the same. As the definition of Tutor is, Professor, Reader or such other person appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research in the University and includes any other person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher, the petitioner who was originally appointed as Tutor and subsequently re-designated as Lecturer (non UGC) definitely comes under the definition of a 'teacher'. The definition of a teacher does not distinguish between a teacher who is qualified in accordance with the UGC Regulations and another who is not qualified as per the UGC Regulations. Similarly, Section 31, when it says that retirement age of teachers of the University shall be 60 years, includes teachers separately while teaching and non teaching officers and other employees of the University are categorised separately fixing their retirement age as 55 years. Sub Section 3 of Section 31 of the Act read as follows: “31. Similarly, Section 31, when it says that retirement age of teachers of the University shall be 60 years, includes teachers separately while teaching and non teaching officers and other employees of the University are categorised separately fixing their retirement age as 55 years. Sub Section 3 of Section 31 of the Act read as follows: “31. Appointment of teachers, officers and staff:- (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx (3) The retirement age of the teachers of the University shall be sixty years and that of the teaching and nonteaching officers and other employees of the University shall be fifty-five years:” Officer is defined under Section 2(k) as: “Officer means an officer of the University specified in Section 23 of the Act or any person designated as Officer by the Statutes.” Petitioner is not an officer under Section 23 of the Act. She cannot also be considered among the other employees of the University. 16. The schedule to the University Act is also relevant in this regard where the posts in non teaching service are given. The post of Tutor or Lecturer (Non-UGC) neither comes under Section 23 nor under the Schedule. Statute 10 of the 1997 Statute also does not differentiate the teachers with reference to the qualification. Therefore, the petitioner can only be treated as teacher and covered by the retirement of 60 years. 17. Yet another question to be considered is whether the syndicate can alter the retirement age provided in the Act. Section 14 of the University Act provides for the powers and functions of the syndicate, which reads as follows: “14. Powers and functions of the Syndicate:- (1) Subject to the provision of this Act and Statutes, the executive powers of the University shall be vested in the Syndicate; and the Syndicate shall have the control, management and administration of the properties and funds of the University. Powers and functions of the Syndicate:- (1) Subject to the provision of this Act and Statutes, the executive powers of the University shall be vested in the Syndicate; and the Syndicate shall have the control, management and administration of the properties and funds of the University. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely:- (a) to make Statutes in accordance with the provisions of this Act and submit for the assent of the Chancellor, (b) to propose Regulations for the consideration and approval of the Academic Council; (c) to make Ordinances and to amend or repeal the same; (d) to determine the degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions to be granted by the University; (e) to institute and to award fellowships, scholarships, medals and prizes; (f) to establish, maintain and manage such institutions as are deemed necessary for the furtherance of the objects of the University; (g) to create such faculties and academic departments as are necessary under the University from time to time; [(ha) to arrange for the inspection of the recognized institution]; (h) to create teaching and non-teaching posts in the University with the prior approval of the Government; (i) to exercise disciplinary powers over the teachers and other employees of the University; (j) to appoint teachers and other employees of the University, to prescribe their duties and to fix their terms and conditions of service in xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx” 18. Therefore, it is clear that any action of the Syndicate is subject to the provisions in the Act and Statute. When the retirement age is prescribed under the Act, the syndicate of the University cannot have any authority to alter the age of retirement by way of a decision taken in their meeting. 19. The contention raised by Sri Prasanth that the petitioner is not getting the UGC scale of pay; that she is governed by the provisions in the KSR and that this court rejected her claim for the UGC scale of pay and therefore she is not entitled to continue till the age of 60, cannot be accepted. 20. It is also pertinent to note that Statute 5 as it stood till 18.12.2007, provides that qualification of teachers shall be in accordance with the regulations of the University. Petitioner's appointment was as per Ext.P3 Regulation. 20. It is also pertinent to note that Statute 5 as it stood till 18.12.2007, provides that qualification of teachers shall be in accordance with the regulations of the University. Petitioner's appointment was as per Ext.P3 Regulation. The amendment insisting qualification as per UGC Regulations was incorporated only from 18.12.2007. Therefore, even the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is not a teacher for not having qualification prescribed in UGC Regulation cannot also be accepted. 21. Those conditions insisted for the purpose of the pay and allowance under the UGC Scheme cannot be the criteria to determine the age of retirement as long as there is no provision provided in the Act or Statute to that effect. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel does not deal with any of the conditions which are available in this case. The only question to be considered in this case is whether a Lecturer (non UGC) will also come under the definition of teacher. In Gopinathan Pillai's case (supra), the question which arose for consideration was whether the Assistant Director in the Centre of Adult, Continuing Education and Extension, University of Kerala was a 'Teacher of the University' who could continue till the age of 60 years. It was held that he was not a 'teacher of the University'. Similar is the case in the unreported judgment relied on by the learned Standing counsel. There is no separate definition given in the SSU Act as given under the Kerala University Act for “Teacher” and “Teacher of the University”. The Apex Court judgment in Ramesh Chandra Bajpel's case, the issue considered was the entitlement of UGC scale of pay, in the absence of any orders extending the UGC pay to Physical Training Instructor in Govt. Ayurveda College. Those cases do not help the respondents. 22. In the judgment P. S. Ramamohana Rao V A.P. Agricultural Society (supra), the Apex Court held that Director of Physical Education comes within the definition of teacher, as it was found that he had to guide the students of various rules of the game and those duties brought him under the definition. Those cases do not help the respondents. 22. In the judgment P. S. Ramamohana Rao V A.P. Agricultural Society (supra), the Apex Court held that Director of Physical Education comes within the definition of teacher, as it was found that he had to guide the students of various rules of the game and those duties brought him under the definition. Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Joseph James case (supra) was also a case where this court held that the Deputy Director of Physical Education and Head of the Department was occupying a teaching post and this court found that he was 'such other person imparting instructions' in the University. Referring to the dictionary meaning of 'impart' it was found that the duties of the petitioner therein included guiding and instructing the students in respect of the games and hence he was a teacher. In none of these cases there was an attempt to distinguish a teacher on the basis of qualification. 23. In this case Section 31(3) read with Section 2 (t) of the Act, does not give rise to any ambiguity in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is a teacher whose age of retirement is 60 years. In the above circumstances, the decision taken by the syndicate in Ext.P6 fixing the age of retirement of Lecturer (Non UGC) at 56 years and the order Ext.P8 are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to continue till she attains the age of 60 years. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.