Physical Training Instructor A 'Teacher' Though Not Conducting Classes Within Four Walls : Supreme Court
Recently (on December 13), the Supreme Court observed that merely because a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) is not expected to conduct classes within four walls of the college, it would not make him ineligible for being treated as a teacher."Merely because the appellant, a PTI/Sports Officer, was not expected to conduct classes within the four walls of the College, as in the case of...
Recently (on December 13), the Supreme Court observed that merely because a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) is not expected to conduct classes within four walls of the college, it would not make him ineligible for being treated as a teacher.
"Merely because the appellant, a PTI/Sports Officer, was not expected to conduct classes within the four walls of the College, as in the case of a Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor, would not by itself make him ineligible for being treated as a teacher for all practical purposes inasmuch as most sports require training in open spaces/fields/courts etc.,” the Court stated.
The Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal made these observations while considering an appeal of one P.C. Modi. Modi was working as a sports officer/ PTI at Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (University). The same was established under the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act of 1963. In exercising the powers conferred under the Act, the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964, was also enacted.
The dispute arose when the University, through its order dated 27th June 2000, apprised the appellant that he would stand to retire from his service upon attaining the age of 60 years. The appellant challenged the same, claiming that he comes under the purview of a “teacher” in terms of Statute 32 of the Act. Based on this, he argued that he would retire only upon attaining the age of 62 years. Irrespectively, the appellant received the retirement order from the university on the eve of attaining the age of 60 years.
It may be noted that as per Statute 32, teachers are described as those discharging their duties by imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension programmes in different capacities as Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor. Also, Statute 11(4) (b) specifies the age of retirement of “teachers” as 62 years whereas the age of retirement of those described as non-teaching service personnel is 60 years.
Against this backdrop, the appellant approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under its writ jurisdiction. Though the Single-Judge Bench of the High Court allowed the appellant's plea, the Division Bench set aside the same. In other words, the Division Judge Bench upheld the order of Modi's retirement. Aggrieved by this, he approached the Top Court.
At the outset, the Court examined the definition of 'Teacher' of the Vishwa Vidyalaya as provided under the Act. With respect to that, the Court observed that the word 'Teacher' has not been stated precisely.
“The word "teacher" has simply been described to mean a person appointed or recognized by the “Vishwa Vidyalaya” who would be required to impart instructions, conduct and guide research, conduct other extension programmes and extends to a person who may be declared as a teacher under the relevant Statute.,” the Court added.
Moving forward, the Court cited the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and Another. Therein, the Court decided on a similar issue, and it was related to the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University. The Court went on to observe that the definition of the word “teacher” as provided under the Andhra Pradesh Act is para materia with the instant Act.
Taking its cue from these observations, the Court opined that “teacher” is inclusive in nature and not just confined to a Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor. The Court explained:
“The definition being inclusive in nature would have to be read expansively and when read in the context of PTI/Sports Officer, it cannot be denied that the appellant while discharging his duties was required to impart instructions relating to the rules and practices adopted for various categories of sports. Besides that, the appellant was also required to impart different skill sets and playing techniques depending on the nature of the sport, for training the students.”
Apart from this, the Court also observed that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in relying upon the decision of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai., where the fact situation was entirely different.
“We are therefore of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court fell into an error by placing reliance on the decision in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), where the issue involved was at variance.,” the Court stated.
In view of the same, the Court declared that appellant would fall within the definition of a “teacher”. Thus, he was entitled to continue in service till completion of 62 years of age. However, considering that the appellant was prematurely retired at 60, the Court entitled him to all consequential and monetary benefits had he continued in service up to 62 years.
Case Title: P.C. MODI v. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4267 OF 2011
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1054