JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. - Will the Assistant Librarian having UGC qualification appointed by the Kerala Agricultural University ['KAU' for short] and drawing UGC scale come within the purview of 'Teacher' as defined under Section 2 (26) of the Kerala University Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act], if he is a person recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instructions ? - Is it obligatory for such person to discharge the workload/output as prescribed for 'Teaching staff' in terms of the Kerala Agricultural University Statute SRO No. 1211/78, to be branded as a 'Teacher' in terms of Section 2 (26) of the Act ? - If such a person satisfies either of the different limbs under Section 2 (26) of the Act, will he not be eligible to continue in service, till he attains the age of 60 years as in the case of Teaching staff ? - If the benefit given by the University on an earlier occasion to a similarly situated person was a mistake, can it be ordered to be extended to the writ petitioners as well, as held by the learned single Judge ? - If no law has been declared and if no finding is rendered that the writ petitioners are situated on a similar pedestal as in the case of the person to whom benefit was extended by the University earlier, can the verdict passed by the learned single Judge be sustained ? These are the various questions to be answered in these appeals preferred by the University, against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge setting aside the impugned order and directing the University to reconsider the matter. 2. Heard Sri. Ranjith Tampan, the learned senior counsel who addressed the Court on behalf of the appellant/University; Mr. N.N. Sugunapalan - the learned counsel senior counsel who appeared for the respondents in W.A. Nos.1866 and 1907 of 2016 and Sri. P.V. Jayachandran - the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A. No. 1894, 1895 and 1950 of 2016 at length. Writ Appeal No. 1895 of 2016 arising from W.P.(C) No. 23203 of 2013 is taken up as the leading case and reference is made to the parties and proceedings as given therein, except where it is separately referred to, depending on the context. 3. Writ Appeal No. 1895 of 2016 arising from W.P.(C) No. 23203 of 2013 is taken up as the leading case and reference is made to the parties and proceedings as given therein, except where it is separately referred to, depending on the context. 3. The writ petitioners were appointed as Library Assistants in the KAU, who subsequently got promoted as Reference Assistants and thereafter as Assistant Librarians. Some of the petitioners were appointed prior to the date of implementation of the UGC in the University and their eligibility to get due promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian stands already settled. It was the case of the writ petitioners, that despite their credentials to impart lessons in respect of various aspects relating to Library and Research Methodology formulated and followed in the University based on the guidelines issued by the ICAR and in spite of taking classes to the students accordingly, they were still included as 'Non-teaching staff' and were made to retire on attaining the age of 55/56 years denying the chance to continue till the age of 60 years as in the case of 'Teachers' coming within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act. It was also pointed out that, pursuant to different rounds of litigations, a similarly situated person by name Dr. K.S. Ambili, who was working as Deputy Librarian was extended the benefit by the University as per Ext. P5 order dated 26.06.2010, which however was never extended to the petitioners stating that Dr. K.S. Ambili's case was never to be treated as a precedent. This made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing writ petitions for immediate intervention, to declare them as eligible to be reckoned as persons coming within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act and to permit them to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years by virtue of section 42 (4) of the Act and to grant consequential benefits. 4. The claim was resisted from the part of the University, mainly contending that no subject as Library Science was being taught in the University and that the writ petitioners were never required to teach the said subject, nor were they considered as teachers by the University. 4. The claim was resisted from the part of the University, mainly contending that no subject as Library Science was being taught in the University and that the writ petitioners were never required to teach the said subject, nor were they considered as teachers by the University. It was also contended that the University had never recognized them as 'teachers' or persons to impart instructions and hence they were outside the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act. Reference was also made to the fact that the writ petitioners were appointed only as Library Assistants and subsequently promoted as Reference Assistants and Assistant Librarians, who were never appointed as a member of the teaching faculty and were clearly categorized as 'non teaching staff'; by virtue of which they had to retire at the age of 55/56 years. The University contended that no reliance can be placed on Ext. P5 order passed in the case of Dr. Ambily, adding that, it was only a mistake which could not be perpetuated, in view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Gursharan Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others [ (1996) 2 SCC 459 ] and Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi [ (2003) 5 SCC 437 ]. A reply affidavit was filed by the writ petitioners, producing copy of extract of the “Curricula and Syllabi” from 2009 onwards in respect of M.Sc./M.Tech course in the KAU, as Exts. P8 and P9 respectively, besides producing a copy of the minutes of the 127th meeting of the Academic Council held on 30.04.2016 [accepting the recommendation of the 57th Meeting of Board of studies, Faculty of Agriculture held on 29.03.2016, treating the course of PGS 501 Research Methodology [1 + 1] as a compulsory credit course] as Ext. P10. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge passed a common verdict in respect of W.P.(C) Nos. 13809, 23303 and 26185 of 2015, virtually following the judgment dated 25.06.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 27402 and 31180 of 2010 [which common judgment is under challenge in W.A. No. 1866 of 2016 and 1907 of 2016 respectively]. In fact, W.P.(C) Nos. 27407 and 31180 of 2010 were finalized by the learned single Judge placing reliance on the judgment dated 01.07.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 12893 of 2007 filed by Dr. In fact, W.P.(C) Nos. 27407 and 31180 of 2010 were finalized by the learned single Judge placing reliance on the judgment dated 01.07.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 12893 of 2007 filed by Dr. K.S. Ambili, Deputy Librarian of the University and the subsequent developments. The learned Judge held that the University had already passed Ext. P2 order dated 26.06.2010 [Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No. 14678 of 2007], whereby it was found that Dr. K.S. Ambili was taking classes to the students imparting instructions and hence it was within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act, in turn permitting her to continue in service till she attained the age of 60 years. It is true that Dr. K.S. Ambili subsequently left the service of KAU and opted to join the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University in the year 2011, pursuant to bifurcation of the then existing Kerala Agricultural University. The learned single Judge held that, if the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 27402 and 31180 of 2010 were falling within the same parameters governing the position as in the case of the order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the University in favour Dr. K.S. Ambili, then the above writ petitioners were also to be extended similar benefit, to the extent as mentioned therein. So as to facilitate such exercise, the impugned order was set aside and the respondent University was directed to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations as mentioned above. 6. The above verdict dated 25.06.2015 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 27402 and 31180 of 2010 was sought to be reviewed at the instance of the KAU by filing R.P. Nos. 901 and 902 of 2015 respectively, contending that the University had already passed an order dated 24.07.2013 [produced as Annexure B therein] holding that the previous order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the University in the case of Dr. K.S. Ambili was an erroneous one and could not be treated as a precedent. It was also pointed out that, by virtue of the provisions under the KAU Statute SRO No.1211/78, which stipulated the workload of Professors, Assistant Professors, Lecturers etc., the writ petitioners working as Assistant Librarians could not be treated as 'Teachers' of the University under the Act. K.S. Ambili was an erroneous one and could not be treated as a precedent. It was also pointed out that, by virtue of the provisions under the KAU Statute SRO No.1211/78, which stipulated the workload of Professors, Assistant Professors, Lecturers etc., the writ petitioners working as Assistant Librarians could not be treated as 'Teachers' of the University under the Act. After considering the materials on record, the learned Judge held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to invoke the power of review, more so, since the University had not cancelled the order dated 26.06.2010 passed in favour Dr. K.S. Ambili. It was accordingly, that the review petition was dismissed as per order dated 18.08.2016. This made the University to approach this Court by filing W.A. No. 1866 of 2016 [arising from R.P. No.901 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 27402 of 2010] and W.A. No. 1907 of 2016 [arising from R.P. No. 902 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No. 31180 of 2010] respectively, which are also heard along with other writ appeals as mentioned above. 7. On going through the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, we are of the view that the legal position has not been declared, but for directing the University to consider and extend the benefit to the petitioners, if they satisfied the parameters followed in the case of Dr. K.S. Ambili while passing the order dated 26.06.2010. This necessitates scrutiny by two folds; firstly, whether the order passed by the University dated 26.06.2010, extending the benefit to Dr. K.S. Ambili was correct or by way of mistake and if it is by way of mistake, could it be extended to other similarly situated persons ? The next question is whether the petitioners stand on their own merit, that they come within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act as per the materials brought on record and if so, does it require any interference with regard to the direction given by the learned single Judge to reconsider the matter - though on a different ground. We find it appropriate to deal with the first question before proceeding to the other, mainly because the specific case projected by the appellant University is that the only contention for the writ petitioners was that the benefit was given to similarly situated persons as per Ext. We find it appropriate to deal with the first question before proceeding to the other, mainly because the specific case projected by the appellant University is that the only contention for the writ petitioners was that the benefit was given to similarly situated persons as per Ext. P5 was to be extended to the writ petitioners as well. 8. It is settled law that, to sustain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, right of the petitioner who is approaching the Court has to be established, except in the case of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or a Writ of Quo-warranto or a Writ petition filed 'pro bono publico'. It may not be correct on the part of the University to say that no other contention was raised by the writ petitioners to establish their rights, as they had a specific case that they are liable to be treated as 'Teachers' in terms of Section 2 (26) of the Act and that the University had already 'recognized' them as 'persons to impart instructions', by virtue of the assignments given in view of the course and curricula, apart from the normal work as Assistant Librarians. But the fact remains, 'Equality' is a positive concept, which cannot be enforced giving a negative interpretation. In other words, an undue benefit given to a person contrary to the relevant provisions of law or facts cannot be sought to be extended to other similarly situated persons through the intervention of the Court, which otherwise will only perpetuate the mistake/injustice. This is the law declared by the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration and Another Vs. Jagjit Singh and another [ AIR 1995 SC 705 ], Gursharan Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others [ (1996) 2 SCC 459 ] and Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi [2006 (3) KLT 601]. This being the position, the appellant University is perfectly justified in contending that merely by the reason that benefit has been given to Dr. K.S. Ambili, it cannot be a ground for extending similar benefit to the writ petitioners through the intervention of this Court. The question is, whether it was wrongly extended by the University to the person by name Dr. K.S. Ambili. 9. The University has clearly arrived at a finding in Ext. P5 that Dr. K.S. Ambili, it cannot be a ground for extending similar benefit to the writ petitioners through the intervention of this Court. The question is, whether it was wrongly extended by the University to the person by name Dr. K.S. Ambili. 9. The University has clearly arrived at a finding in Ext. P5 that Dr. K.S. Ambili was imparting instructions and as such, she would come within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act. Section 2 (26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act reads as follows : “'Teacher' means the person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instructions or conducting and guiding research or extension education programmes, and includes any other person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher” By virtue of the above provision, it is not obligatory to have a person appointed as a 'Teacher' itself to come within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act. It will be enough, if the University has recognized such person as a person to impart instructions, to come within the sweep of Section 2 (26) of the Act. It was accordingly, that the University observed in Ext. P5, that on account of the fact that Dr. K.S. Ambili had been taking classes in SRM 613 - Research Methodology on the use of Library documentation of date, computer aided literature search and retrieval, she was liable to be included in the definition of 'Teacher' under Section 2 (26) of the Act and fixed her retirement age as 60 years, as in the case of 'Teachers'. While authorising the Vice Chancellor to pass orders in this regard, the Apex body/Executive Committee, vide Ext. P5 order also stipulated to incorporate a sentence, that it however will not be treated as a precedent. We are at a loss to understand, why such a sentence was incorporated, as even according to the University, the factual position was established [as to imparting of instructions by Dr. K.S. Ambili, to bring her within the sweep of Section 2 (26) of the Act] and if similar factual context is established in other cases, the same reasoning should naturally follow. 10. The University has got a contention that the issue was considered by the Executive Committee again and as per Ext. K.S. Ambili, to bring her within the sweep of Section 2 (26) of the Act] and if similar factual context is established in other cases, the same reasoning should naturally follow. 10. The University has got a contention that the issue was considered by the Executive Committee again and as per Ext. P6 minutes of the meeting held on 06.03.2013 and the confirmation of the said minutes in the subsequent meeting [502nd meeting] held on 24.06.2013. It was accordingly held that the order dated 26.06.2010 passed in the case of Dr. Ambili was a mistake and hence Ext. P7 order dated 24.07.2013 was issued holding as follows : “1. As per the provision in the statutes of the KAU the Library staff including Assistant Librarian/Deputy Librarian of this University cannot be considered as teacher of this University, as defined in Section 2 (26) of Kerala Agricultural University Act. They are not entitled to claim the benefits attached to the post of a teacher of the Kerala Agricultural University. Hence they are not eligible to continue in service beyond 56 years i.e. the age fixed for superannuation to the non-teaching staff of Kerala Agricultural University. 2. This order is subject to final judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 27402 and 31180 and 13809 of 2011” 11. Obviously, the above order was passed with reference to the mandate of the KAU Statute No. 1211/78, which prescribes the 'workload' of the 'Teaching staff' in the Agricultural University; the relevant portion of which is extracted below : “The KAU Statute SRO 1211/78 describes details of work load of teaching staff in the faculties of Kerala Agricultural University as shown below : “1. Work-load of teaching staff – The work-load of the teaching staff of the various constituent colleges of the University shall be as prescribed below : Professor 12 contact hours per week Associate Professor 16 contact hours per week Assistant Professor 18 contact hours per week Instructor 20 contract hours per week The said statute also describes the staff pattern for the Departments of the constituent Colleges under different faculties in Degree, Post Graduate and Ph.D. Programmers. Thus an employee of the University claiming the benefit of a teacher should fulfill the above specifications of the said SRO. In the case of Dr. Thus an employee of the University claiming the benefit of a teacher should fulfill the above specifications of the said SRO. In the case of Dr. Ambili, the decision of the Executive Committee to consider the service rendered by her as teacher was taken without considering the provisions like work load, staff pattern etc. as contemplated in SRO 1211/78. Her service was treated as teacher without even bringing within the ambit of any of the four posts mentioned in the SRO, viz Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Instructor. Moreover, when University published the notification inviting applications to the post of Librarians, Ref. Assistant etc., there was absolutely no proposal/scheme for treating them as teacher on later stages of their service.” 12. It has to be borne in mind that term 'Teacher' has been clearly defined by the University under Section 2 (26) of the Act, mentioning the specific requirements to be branded as a 'Teacher'. A person can be treated as a 'Teacher', going by the definition of Section 2 (26), if he is coming under the three different sources as given below : (a) if appointed by the University as a teacher; (b) if recognized by the University as a person imparting or conducting and guiding research or extension education programmes; (c) if declared as a teacher by the Statutes. If any one of the above three requirements is satisfied, such a person is liable to be reckoned as a Teacher under Section 2 (26) of the Act. Obviously, the said provision in the Act does not refer to any minimum 'workload' to be discharged, so as to be branded as a 'Teacher' and as such, the KAU Statute SRO 1211/78 prescribing the 'workload of the Teaching staff' can never amend the law [Section 2 (26) of the Act] made by the Legislature. 13. Coming to the scope of the KAU Statute SRO No. 1211/78, there cannot be a dispute that the 'workload of Teaching staff' is clearly stipulated, as extracted above. The said Statute clearly speaks about the stipulated workload of the Teaching staff of the various constituent colleges of the University. The said stipulation is in respect of persons 'appointed as Teachers', who come under the first limb of Section 2 (26) of the Act. The said Statute clearly speaks about the stipulated workload of the Teaching staff of the various constituent colleges of the University. The said stipulation is in respect of persons 'appointed as Teachers', who come under the first limb of Section 2 (26) of the Act. To put it more clear, the KAU Statute SRO No 1211/78 does not prescribe the workload in respect of other persons who are imparting instructions and recognized by the University in this regard; and still come under the second limb of Section 2 (26). This is more so since the persons appointed as teachers coming in the first limb of Section 2 (26) are exclusively appointed for the said purpose of teaching, whereas in the case of persons coming under the second limb, who impart instructions are meeting the said task, apart from their other/normal duties attached to the posts they are holding. 14. This can be viewed from another angle as well. While the above Statute stipulates the minimum workload of Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Instructors, it cannot be lost sight of that the persons at the helm of the affairs of the department may be having some administrative/research work as well. If for any reason, the University assigns such other duty to them in the better organizational interest, their teaching hours may come to be lesser than the stipulated extent, which by itself will not take them outside the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act and to have them branded as non-teaching staff. In the said circumstances, the idea and understanding of the Executive Committee of the University in having taken Ext. P6 decision, followed by Ext. P7 order dated 24.07.2013, merely with reference to the 'workload for Teaching Staff' stipulated under the KAU Statute SRO 1211/78 to hold that Ext. P5 order passed in the case of Dr. K.S. Ambili was without any reference to KAU Statute SRO 1211/78 and hence wrong, is not liable to be sustained in the eye of law. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners sought to place reliance on various decisions rendered by the Apex Court and also by this Court in support of their contention that the writ petitioners actually do come within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners sought to place reliance on various decisions rendered by the Apex Court and also by this Court in support of their contention that the writ petitioners actually do come within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act. Though the said decisions have been rendered with reference to definition of the term as 'Teacher' under Section 2 (28) of the Calicut University Act and Section 2 (27) of the Kerala University Act, the position is almost similar and hence covered by the law declared in this regard. Specific reference is made in W.A. No. 1866 of 2016 to the judgment dated 14.03.1995 in W.A. No. 221 of 1995, whereby the stand taken by the University/appellant was repelled and the writ petitioners who were working as Sub Editor in the Department of Malayalam Lexicon under the University of Kerala were held as coming within the purview of Section 2 (27) of the Act and were permitted to continue till the age of 60 years in turn upholding the verdict passed by the learned single Judge, thereby dismissing the appeal. Similar reliance is placed on the verdict dated 26.09.2008 in W.A. No. 2174 of 1999 and connected cases in respect of the Calicut University, where the post of 'Coach' appointed by the University imparting classes to the students in the field of physical education was the subject matter of debate. Placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.P. Agricultural University [ AIR 1997 SC 3433 ], the Court held that, going by the definition contained in Section 2 (28), r/w S. 2 (27) of the Act, it was to be construed that 'Coaches' were appointed necessarily to impart instructions and they were quite within the definition of the term 'Teacher'. Though the post of 'Coach' was included in the schedule of non-teaching category, the Bench held that it was not significant and accordingly, the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners was allowed permitting to continue till the age of 60 years. 16. Coming to the factual position involved in the present case, it was strongly contended by the University that the University had never recognized the writ petitioners as persons to impart instructions and that no materials had been produced by them to substantiate this aspect. 16. Coming to the factual position involved in the present case, it was strongly contended by the University that the University had never recognized the writ petitioners as persons to impart instructions and that no materials had been produced by them to substantiate this aspect. The said version is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the specific pleadings raised in this regard and the various documents produced and marked before this Court. Ext. P1 in W.P.(C) No. 23203 of 2013 is a copy of the extract of the new and restructured post-graduate curricula and syllabi prescribed by the ICAR, New Delhi and accepted and followed by the University. It clearly shows that PGS 501 Library and Information Services and five other courses mentioned therein are compulsory for Master's Programme in all disciplines, though it is optional for P.Hd holders. The course contents showing the objective and practical are worthwhile to be noted and hence are extracted below : Course Contents PGS 501 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES 0+1 Objective To equip the library users with skills to trace information from libraries efficiently, to apprise them of information and knowledge resources, to carry out literature survey, to formulate information search strategies, and to use modern tools [internet, OPAC, search engines etc.) of information search. Practical Introduction to library and its services: Role of libraries in education, research and technology transfer; Classification systems and organization of library; Sources of information -Primary Sources, Secondary Sources and Tertiary Sources; Intricacies of abstracting and indexing services [Science Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, CABI Abstracts etc.]; Tracing information from reference sources; Literature survey; citation techniques/Preparation bibliography; use of CD-ROM Databases, Online Publice Access Catalogue and other computerized library services; Use of Internet including search engines and its resources; e-resources access methods.” 17. Ext. P2 is the direction issued by the Kerala Agricultural University, pursuant to Ext. P1 regarding the organization of course contents and credit requirements to be followed in the University in respect of the post-graduate and doctoral programmes. The objective of the course PGS-501 stands elaborately dealt with therein. Dealing with the objective of the Research Methodology to equip the PG students to conceive research ideas and undertake research -both in field and in lab - on their own, in pursuance of concrete idea and research, they formed for the development of agricultural research. The objective of the course PGS-501 stands elaborately dealt with therein. Dealing with the objective of the Research Methodology to equip the PG students to conceive research ideas and undertake research -both in field and in lab - on their own, in pursuance of concrete idea and research, they formed for the development of agricultural research. The importance of practical session is also explained. Under unit IV, the following four items are important : “UNIT IV 1. Introduction to library and its services, information management. 2. Library classification systems - Colon classification – Dewey Decimal classification etc.; - Selective Dissemination Services (SDS), Current Awareness Services (CAS). 3. Sources of information - primary, secondary and tertiary. Information retrieval systems - Online and Offline information sources and databases, CD-ROM databases. 4. Indexing and abstracting; Library networks; Modern information systems - AGRIS, CABI, CARIS, AGRICOLA etc. Coming to the practical schedule, the following three items are more concerned with the field library : “Practical Schedule: 1. Use of Library - Familiarization with various features of library. 2. Locating books and other documents using library catalogue - colon and DDC. 3. Computer-aided literature search - Familiarization of important databases such CABS, CARIS, AGRIS, AGRICOLA, Biological abstracts etc. 18. Ext. P3 is a Circular dated 10.07.2012 giving particulars of the Semester Calender in respect of the first semester of the academic year 2012-13. In respect of “Non Credit Compulsory Courses - PGS 501 - Research Methodology”, name of both the writ petitioners in this case have been given as the persons to impart instructions. This by itself is enough to show that the University had recognized the writ petitioners as fit persons to impart instructions in respect of Research Methodology PGS - 501 non-credit compulsory course. Ext. P4 is further proof as to this fact in respect of the notification dated 02.03.2013 for the first semester of 2013 -14 of the PG and Doctorate Programme, wherein also the names of the writ petitioners have been shown as the persons identified by the University to impart instructions in respect of Non-Credit Compulsory Course -PGS 501- Research Methodology. As such, the University cannot take a 'U turn' to contend that they had not recognized the writ petitioners in this regard. 19. As such, the University cannot take a 'U turn' to contend that they had not recognized the writ petitioners in this regard. 19. In response to the disputed extent of imparting of instructions performed by the writ petitioners, the vital facts and figures in this regard have been given by the writ petitioners [in respect of various courses/pragammes and the job undertaken by them in different colleges, showing their substantial involvement] in the reply affidavit dated 24.06.2016. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the 127th meeting of the Academic Council held on 30.04.2016, it was decided by the Academic Council to accept the recommendations of the 57th Meeting of the Board of Studies, Faculty of Agriculture held on 29.03.2016 to reckon the PGS 501 -Research Methodology Course (1+1) as a Compulsory Credit Course [changing status from non-compulsory credit course]. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, I.A. No. 392/2018 has been filed by the 1st writ petitioner/1st respondent in Writ Appeal to accept some additional documents as Annexures R1(a) to R1(d). The University has filed an affidavit dated 18.03.2018 producing some additional documents as Annexures A1(a) to A1(d). It is revealed from the above proceedings that the enhancement of retirement age of Library Staff and the benefits flowing from the implementation of the UGC scale and the incidental anomalies were always a subject matter of grievance raised from the part of the staff, which ultimately came to be considered by the 4th Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by the University in this regard. Annexure R1A minutes of the said meeting held on 19.11.2010 made some suggestions/recommendations and decided to place the matter before the Executive Committee to take a final decision. The relevant portion of the decision at paragraph No. 12 of the said minutes reads as follows : “12. Implementation of UGC to Assistant Librarians. The grievances submitted by the Assistant Librarian Sri. A.T. Francis, Sri. V.S. Kunhimuhammed and Sri. K.P. Sathiyan were examined in detail. The Redressal Committee decided to place the matter before the Executive Committee to take a decision on reckoning of past service for CAP (ii) enhancement of retirement age to 60 years and (ii) reducing the length of qualifying service from 8 years to 6 years fro Career Advancement Promotion. V.S. Kunhimuhammed and Sri. K.P. Sathiyan were examined in detail. The Redressal Committee decided to place the matter before the Executive Committee to take a decision on reckoning of past service for CAP (ii) enhancement of retirement age to 60 years and (ii) reducing the length of qualifying service from 8 years to 6 years fro Career Advancement Promotion. It was decided to consider their service as Reference Assistants as in the case of JAP and six years instead of 8 years for CAP. Date of retirement is also to be reviewed. Matter may be placed before the Executive Committee for decision.” 20. On receipt of the above proceedings, the University, as per order dated 12.12.2014, constituted a Committee constituting of experts in the filed, with. Dr. Jim Thomas, Associate Director of Research [AR & T), KAU as the Chairman and such others, also including a Librarian of the University as a member. The said Enquiry Committee made a threadbare analysis of the facts and figures and among the other things, it was decided to recommend to the Executive Committee to enhance the retirement age of Library staff in the UGC/ICAR Scheme from 55 years to 60 years. The relevant portion as contained in paragraph 17 of the report reads as follows : “C. 4th UGC Anomaly Redressal Committee Report : 17. The 4th UGC Anomaly Redressal Committee of KAU, headed by Prof. C. Raveendranath, Hon. MLA & Executive Committee (EC) Member with other members viz. Dr. K. Aravindakshan, Professor, Dr. A. Anilkumar, Professor, Dr. S. Leenakumari, Professor (all former members of KAUEC) and Dr. T.R. Gopalakrishnan, then Director of Research, KAU, have examined the matter and had recommended, vide decision in its minutes No. GA/C2/21239/2009 dated 19.11.10, to (i) Reckon the past service of Reference Assistants for CAP; (ii) Enhance the retirement age of Library staff in UGC/ICAR Scheme to 60 years; and (iii) Reduce the length of qualifying service from 8 years to 6 yeas for career advancement promotion as per the 1996 UGC Scheme (Appendix 20)” The above Enquiry Committee also made a reference to 'E.V. Nybe Committee report', to have the issues settled permanently, giving suggestions as given in paragraph 19, which is reproduced below : “19. Dr. Dr. E.V. Nybe Committee had also proposed (vide its Report dated 16.08.2013) (Appendix 22) the following suggestions to settle the issues permanently with respect to the implementation of UGC-ICAR pay scale to the library staff as listed below : (i) Induct all existing Library Staff to the UGCICAR pay and promotion scheme as on the date of acquiring the UGC prescribed qualifications (NET, Ph.D. or M. Phil acquired during a particular period as approved by the UGC by upgrading the posts of Reference Assistants. (ii) M.LISc. and M.Phil qualifications from the UGC recognized Universities acquired by the library staff already in service may be accepted in KAU for UGC induction and CAP. In the case of distance education courses, if it is from UGC recognized Universities and if the course is recognized by the Distance Education Council of India the same my be accepted.” 21. It was accordingly, that the Enquiry Committee submitted various recommendations to the authorities of the Kerala Agricultural University [Executive Committee], among which, item No. iv is in relation to the enhancement of retirement age of the Library Staff, as dealt with in paragraph Nos. 17 and 19. Recommendation No. iv reads as follows : “iv. Implement the recommendations of the 4th UGC Anomaly Redressal Committee of KAU and that of Dr. E.V. Nybe Committee of KAU to settle the issues on the implementation of UGC-ICAR Scheme for the Library staff in KAU as detailed in Paras 17 and 19.” [Slight difference is seen with regard to paragraph No. 18 in Annexure A1(b) and R1(b) produced by the appellants and respondents respectively; though not substantial.] A 'Supplementary Note' was also submitted by Dr. Jim Thomas with the following recommendations : “i. The College Libraries in KAU may be recognized as a full-fledged Teaching Department similar to that of the Physical Education Department which is more pertinent and relevant of an R & D establishment like KAU. ii. Towards achieving these goals, if necessary, the KAU has to amend its existing act and statutes and relevant provisions to make the University more fruitful in its academic and research pursuits with the modern ICT background and tools.” It is revealed from Annexure R1(c) that the Executive Committee meeting No. 551 held on 11.01.2017 took up the matter as item No.110/16 and Dr. Jim Committee report was accepted by the Executive Committee, though the 'Supplementary Note' was not taken into consideration. In the affidavit dated 18.03.2018 filed by the appellant University, the course and events with reference to the 4th Redressal Committee Meeting held on 19.11.2010 [produced as Annexure A1(c), which is the same as Annexure R1(A) produced by the writ petitioner in I.A. No. 392 of 2018] have been brought on record, showing that the matter stands placed in the Executive Committee for a decision. Reference is also made to Annexure A1 (d) proceedings in respect of the 555th meeting of the Executive Committee held on 24.04.2017, to the effect that no final decision was taken in the matter, and it was decided to keep the matter in abeyance till the final verdict is passed by this Court in appeal. 22. After hearing both the sides and on going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the factum of imparting instructions by the writ petitioners stands established so as to come within the purview of Section 2 (26) of the Act [though they may not be discharging an equal quantum of workload specified in respect of 'teaching staff' as per the Statute No. 1811/78]. This Court has already held that the workload in the case of 'teaching staff', as such, is not applicable in the case of persons employed by the University in other capacities, but identified and entrusted to impart instructions to the students, to the requisite extent in the relevant field. The contention of the University that no specific course is being conducted by the University in 'Library Science', in any of its Institutions, to recognize the persons like writ petitioners engaged in the library as teachers, is of no consequence. A downward flow of knowledge/learning from the writ petitioners to the students, based on the revised curricula/syllabi prescribed by the ICAR and followed by the University in the field of 'Research Methodology' is substantiated and as it stands so, imparting of instructions envisaged under Section 2(26) of the Act need not be in any particular subject/course in which Degree/Post-graduate degree/Doctoral degree is awarded by the University. 23. Coming to the case law, heavy reliance is placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.P. Agricultural University [ AIR 1997 SC 3433 ] by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. 23. Coming to the case law, heavy reliance is placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.P. Agricultural University [ AIR 1997 SC 3433 ] by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. The appellant therein, who was serving as a Physical Education Director [initially appointed in a Government Agriculture College and subsequently transferred to the service of the Andhra Pradesh Agriculture University, pursuant to the formation of the University, put up a claim that he was entitled to continue till attaining the age of 60 years as in the case of 'Teachers'. After taking note of the definition of the 'Teacher' under Section 2 (n) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act 1965 and other relevant facts and circumstances, the Apex Court held that the appellant actually did come within the purview of the said definition of 'Teacher' and he was held as eligible to continue till 60 years, thus ordering payment of retirement benefits accordingly. 24. According to the learned senior counsel for the Kerala Agricultural University, the issue involved therein was in respect of Physical Education Department where imparting of teaching was very much integral to the post in question; which is not so in the instant case. It is contended that the issue is squarely covered by the common verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 07.11.2016 in W.A. No. 1283 of 2016 and connected cases. It was a case where the Assistant Librarians Grade I in the service of the Kerala Agricultural University had put forth a claim that they were liable to be treated as 'teachers' and were entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of retirement as in the case of 'Teachers. This was approved by the Kerala University, pointing out that they were only 'non-teaching staff', who were governed by the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) and KS & SSR and hence were to retire at the age of 56 years. It was also pointed out that, by virtue of law declared by the Supreme Court in Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and others [ (2015) 6 SCC 363 ], since the UGC regulations were already adopted by the State, even if there was conflict between the UGC Regulations and the State enactments governing the Universities, the UGC regulations would prevail. It was also pointed out that, by virtue of law declared by the Supreme Court in Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and others [ (2015) 6 SCC 363 ], since the UGC regulations were already adopted by the State, even if there was conflict between the UGC Regulations and the State enactments governing the Universities, the UGC regulations would prevail. The Division Bench framed two questions as dealt with in 'paragraph 5' which is reproduced below : “5. In our view, two questions arise for consideration in these appeals. The first question is whether the writ petitioners are entitled to claim the benefit of the age of superannuation as prescribed by the UGC in its Regulations and the second question would be whether the writ petitioners are “teachers of the University” as defined in the Kerala University Act.” It was observed that the stand of the UGC was clear, that the age of retirement was a matter left to the 'Policy decision of the State Government' and not part of the Regulations of the UGC. Reference was also made to the verdict passed by another Bench of this Court in Mathai Vs. Elizebeth Xavier [ 2011 (2) KLT 468 ], from which it is discernible that the age of retirement of teaching staff is totally outside the purview of the UGC Regulations and it stands entirely within the domain of the State Government. It was accordingly held that the writ petitioners were not eligible to claim enhancement of their age of retirement on the basis of the UGC Regulations and instead, their retirement age will be governed by the provisions of the KSR, which had been incorporated by reference in Statute 2 of Chapter IV of the Kerala University Statutes 1977. The 'first question' was thus answered against the writ petitioners. 25. Coming to the 'second question' as to whether writ petitioners could be treated as 'Teachers' of the University, reference was made to some documents produced by the writ petitioners to show that the University had recognized some of the Assistant Librarians [who were also Ph.d holders] as Research Guides and they were imparting instructions, guiding research or were functioning as question paper setters/examiners or had conducted practical examination/viva-voce. Specific reference was made to the definition of term 'Teacher' under Section 2 (27) and teacher of the University under Section 2(28) of the Kerala University Act. Specific reference was made to the definition of term 'Teacher' under Section 2 (27) and teacher of the University under Section 2(28) of the Kerala University Act. The Bench also placed reliance on the verdict passed by another Division Bench of this Court in Gopinathan Pillai P. (Dr.) Vs. University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram and Others [ 2016 (4) KHC 153 ] (which was also concerned with the Kerala University). In the said case, after referring to the definition of the term 'Teacher' and 'Teacher of the University' under Sections 2 (27) and 2 (28) respectively, reference was also made to the verdict passed by this Court in W.A. No. 1099/1988 pertaining to the Calicut University Act where almost similar definition of teacher and teacher of the University under Section 2 (27) and 2 (28) of the Act were existing. The contention taken by the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners had been recognized by the Calicut University to guide research students for Ph.d degree was taken note of, however, observing that it was nobody’s case that the writ petitioners had been employed or appointed to supervise or guide the research. It was accordingly held that the instance only amounted to granting permission to the writ petitioners to supervise or guide research students and that there was a fundamental difference between assigning of particular duties and responsibilities and the granting of permission to a particular person on his/her own request to do certain thing. The Bench observed that the concept of employment, is highlighted in the definition of the 'Teacher of the University' as given under Section 2 (28) of the Act and hence it was not enough that a person is recognized as a guide or supervisor for research, to give him or her the status of a 'Teacher' and what is required is that such a person should have been employed to do such work of guiding or supervising research. 26. The aforesaid judgment in W.A. No. 1099 of 1988 was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Walter Alexander Vs. University of Kerala [ 2011 (1) KLT 963 ] and repelled the claim of the appellant to be treated as a teacher. 26. The aforesaid judgment in W.A. No. 1099 of 1988 was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Walter Alexander Vs. University of Kerala [ 2011 (1) KLT 963 ] and repelled the claim of the appellant to be treated as a teacher. It was with reference to the above three verdicts passed by the Division Bench of this Court that the matter was further examined by the Bench in W.A. No. 1283 of 2016 and connected cases, and observed that, while considering the question whether a person is a 'Teacher’ of the University, the issue to be examined is whether he is ‘Teacher of the University' as defined under 2 (28) of the Act. It was accordingly held that to be a 'Teacher of the University’, a person must be employed as teacher in any of the institutions maintained by the University and since the writ petitioners were never employed as 'Teachers of the University' they would not come within the definition of the term 'Teacher of the University' under Section 2 (28) of the Act; though a person employed in the University for such other purposes had incidentally imparted instructions or guided research students; which would not qualify him to be a 'Teacher of the University'. 27. A contention has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the University that the definition of the term 'Teacher' under the Kerala Universities Act is wider than the definition of the similar term in the Kerala Agricultural University Act. Still, interference has been declined by this Court in W.A. No. 1283 of 2016 and connected cases, deciding the issue in favour of the University of Kerala, observing that the occasional instances of taking classes by the writ petitioners therein will not be enough to brand the Assistant Librarians of the said University, to be treated as 'teacher', enabling them for parity with the teachers in the matter of age of retirement. To appreciate the scope of the said submission, a comprehensive analysis of the definition of the term 'Teacher' under similar enactments is to be made and the difference in the position in the case of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, if any, is to be looked into. For easy reference and comparative analysis, we find it appropriate to extract the relevant provisions under the different enactment as given below : “The Kerala Agricultural University Act 1971 2. For easy reference and comparative analysis, we find it appropriate to extract the relevant provisions under the different enactment as given below : “The Kerala Agricultural University Act 1971 2. Definitions :- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- xxxxx (26) "Teacher" means the person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instructions or conducting and guiding research or extension education programmes, and includes any other person who may be declared by the statutes to be a teacher; The Calicut University Act 1975 2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :- xxxxx (27) “teacher” means a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognized institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University: (28) “teacher of the University” means a person employed as teacher in any institution maintained by the University; The Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 3. Definition.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :- xxxxxx (22) "teacher" means a professor, Reader, Lecturer or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in the departments/schools of the University, or in recognized institutions whose appointment has been approved by the University; (23) "Teacher of the University" means a person employed as a teacher in any department or school of the University; The Kannur University Act, 1996 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires xxxxx (xxviii) "teacher" means a principal, professor, associate professor assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University; (xxix) "teacher of the University" means a person employed as teacher in any institution maintained by the University: The Kerala University Act, 1974 2. Definitions :-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires xxxxxx (27) “teacher” means a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognized institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University; (28) “teacher of the University” means a person employed as teacher in any institution maintained by the University. The Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 2. The Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- xxxxxx (29) “teacher” means a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognized institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University; (30) “teacher of the University” means a person employed as teacher in any institution maintained by the University; The Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (t) "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 Statues to be a teacher; 28. From the above, it is quite evident that the definition of the term 'Teacher' is exactly similar in Kerala Agricultural University Act and also under Sri Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act 1994; whereas the said term is differently worded under the other enactments, besides separately defining the term “teacher of the university”. It is in the said background that the matter has to be considered whether the reasoning given by the Bench in Mathai’s case [cited supra], Gopinathan Pillai’s case [cited supra], Walter Alexander’s case [cited supra] and W.A. No. 1283 of 2016 and connected cases could be applied to decide the issue involved in the present case, where there is only one definition i.e. defining the term 'Teacher' under Section 2 (26) of the Act and without separately defining 'Teacher of the University' as in the other enactments and the obvious difference in the terminology used. 29. On going through the definition of the term 'Teacher' under Section 2 (26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, it is to noted that the specific words “recognized by university for imparting”, as it appears there, are conspicuously absent while defining the term teacher under Section 2 (27) of the Kerala University Act or The Calicut University Act. Similarly, it is to be noted that the words “and whose appointment has approved by the University” as the terminology appears under Section 2(27) of the Kerala University Act or the Calicut University Act are not there in Section 2 (26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act. Similarly, it is to be noted that the words “and whose appointment has approved by the University” as the terminology appears under Section 2(27) of the Kerala University Act or the Calicut University Act are not there in Section 2 (26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act. It is only by virtue of the above key words and by virtue of the separate definition of term 'Teacher of the University' as defined under Section 2 (28) of the Kerala University Act or the Calicut University Act that the sanctity of the appointment has been highlighted/glorified in the Division Bench judgments cited supra. In so far as the above key words are absent in the Kerala Agricultural University Act and since there is no separate definition of the term 'Teacher of the University' in the Kerala Agricultural University Act and further since Section 2(26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act also provides for identification of those who have been recognized by the University for imparting instructions also as 'teachers', the definition of the term 'Teacher' as it appears in Section 2 (26) of the Kerala Agricultural University Act stands on a different footing, than the provision under the other University enactments as referred to above. For this reason, the verdicts passed by the various Division Benches as referred to above, do not place any bar on the way of the writ petitioners herein [who were identified by the Kerala Agricultural University for imparting instructions and in terms of the curricula and syllabi prescribed by the ICAR and followed by the University, thus recognizing them in this regard to impart instructions], and they are eligible to be declared as 'teachers'. The contention raised to the contrary stands repelled and it is ordered accordingly. 30. In view of the declaration made by this Court with reference to Section 2 (26) of the Act and scope of the Statute No. 1211/78, we are of the definite view that the matter requires to be considered by the Executive Committee, more so in view of the recommendations made by the Committees concerned, which now stand placed before the Executive Committee. This being the position, the suggestion made by Dr. This being the position, the suggestion made by Dr. Jim Committee in the 'Supplementary Note' [which was stated as not considered] while making recommendations for enhancing of the retirement age of the Library Staff from 55/56 years to 60 years “even by amending the Statute” is not at all a requirement and that result can be achieved in view of the declaration already made by this Court. Even though we do not support the view taken by the learned single Judge holding that since the University has already extended the benefit to Dr. Ambili as per Ext. P5, it is liable to be equally made applicable to the writ petitioners as well [it turn directing the University to have the matter considered without any declaration of law], we do not find it necessary to interdict the direction to have the matter reconsidered, in view of our declaration made with reference to Section 2 (26) of the Act and as to the scope of the Statute No. 1211/78. 31. In the above circumstances, the appellant University is directed to reconsider the matter as mentioned above and also in the light of the recommendation/report submitted by the different committees with regard to the necessity to enhance the age of retirement of the qualified library staff. The matter shall be finalized by passing a speaking order, at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeals are disposed of as above.