Pichai and S. Kaliaperumal vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Annamalai University

A.K. Rajan, J.—The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 14915 of 1997 by name A. Pichai was working as Assistant Librarian in the year 1997.

Since he completed the age of 58 years, he was superannuated.

The petitioner in W.P. No. 10328 of 1999, by name S. Kaliaperumal was working as the Deputy Librarian. Since he completed the age of 58,

he was superannuated. Both the persons have filed the present writ petitions challenging that their age of superannuation is 60 years as that of

teachers and not 58 years. Sixty years is applicable only for teaching staff. Therefore, the main point to be considered in these writ petitions is,

whether the Librarian, Assistant Librarian or Deputy Librarian are teaching staff within the definition of the University Act or as a non-teaching

staff.

Mr. S. Sethuraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in Syed Amin Khalandar Vs. The Director of Collegiate

Education and others, , this Court held that the Librarian in Private Colleges falls within the definition of term `Teacher'' and he referred to the

definition of teacher in Madras University Act, 1923, where teachers means such as ""Professors, Assistant Professors, Readers, Lecturers,

Demonstrators, Tutors, Librarians and other like persons as may be declared to be teachers by the statutes framed under any law for the time

being in force governing a university"". Following this definition, this Court has held that the post of Librarian also falls within definition of teacher.

He referred to another judgment in T.PADMANABHAN VS. THE TAMIL UNIVERSITY, THANJAVUR, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR

reported in 2202 (2) CTC 754. In that case, The Tamil University Act declare Librarian as belonging to academic staff but Appendix-I to that Act

show the post of Librarian as non-academic staff. In these circumstances, the Court held that Librarian is a teacher.

He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.P. Agricultural University and Another, , wherein the

Supreme Court held as follows:-

The Physical Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for the students every evening and looks after the

procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompanies

the students'' team when they go for the inter-university tournaments. For that purpose, it is one of his important duties to guide them about the

rules of the various games and sports. Different games and sports have different rules and practices and unless the students are guided about the

said rules and practices they will not be able to play the games and participate in the sports in a proper manner. It is inherent in the duties of a

Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and techniques of these games and sports. There are a large number of indoor and

outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach them several skills and techniques of these games apart from

the rules applicable to these games. The Physical Director therefore comes within the definition of a teacher in Section 2(n) of the Act.

Relying upon the above judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Librarian is a teacher, since his function involves

teaching also.

Mrs. D. Geetha, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that Syndicate of Annamalai University has passed a Resolution

specifically declaring that the Librarians are not teaching staff and they cannot be treated as teachers. Further, the learned counsel contended that

the services of these persons utilised only occasionally when emergency arises due to vacancy in the teaching staff. Only then, they were teaching

the students. Therefore, from that they cannot be treated as ""teachers"", as they are not regularly teaching. Therefore, they cannot be treated as

teachers.

It is to be seen that according to Section 2(10) of the University Act ""teacher"" means Professors, Assistant Professors, Readers, Lecturers,

Demonstrators, Tutors, Librarians and other like persons as give instructions or to take part in the training of the students of the University in the

prescribed manner and from this definition, it is clear that the definition is not a exhaustive definition and it only means Professors, Lecturers,

Librarians and duties but also it includes such other persons as giving instructions to take part in the training of students.

From the typed set filed in support of the writ petitions, it is seen that by a communication issued by the Annamalai University on 24.1.1992

addressed to Mr. P. Pichai, Assistant Librarian by this letter, he has been informed that ""it is proposed to utilise the service of Pichai as a Resource

Person for seven days for the contact programme at Annamalai Nagar from 6.2.1992 to 12.2.1992, you are requested to teach the following

topics. Similarly, on 3.6.1992, another letter was addressed to the same individual requesting him to correct the Response Sheets of B.L.I.S.

Course. Similarly by another letter issued on 8.7.1992, he was requested to correct the Response Sheets. From this, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that they were discharging the duties of a teaching staff. Therefore, they should be construed as ""teachers"". The argument of

the petitioners is acceptable inasmuch as the petitioners'' services were requested for teaching the students of Library Science and also to correct

the Response Sheets. These persons can said to be included within the definition of other persons as to give instructions to or to take part in the

training of the students of the University. Therefore, the petitioners are involved in teaching the students of the University. Therefore, by the

definition of the University Act itself, these persons are teachers and hence all the benefits as teachers shall be applicable to them also.

Admittedly, the age of superannuation for the teachers is 60 years. Therefore, the age for the Librarians is also 60 years. The Syndicate

Resolution, which is said to have been passed declaring that these Librarians as not teaching staff will not have any validity in the light of the

definition found in the Act itself. The resolution of the Syndicate cannot be contrary or against the definition of the Act itself. Therefore, inasmuch as

the resolution of the Syndicate is contrary to the Act, the resolution will not have any force and the definition found in the Act shall prevail. So, the

Syndicate Resolution will not alter the situation, merely because the Syndicate Resolution says that they are non-teaching staff. Inasmuch as they

are teachers and their retirement age is 60 years, and since they have attained 60 years also, they will not be reinstated in service but they are

entitled to only monitory benefits for a period of two years, minus the pension already paid.

Both the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed. No costs.