'Scientific Officer' Not A 'Teacher' Within The Scope Of Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Vivek Agarwal observed-

In the present case, the petitioner has not brought on record any material to show that the post of Senior Technical Assistant or that of Scientific Officer has been declared by the Statute to be a post of Teacher… In the present case, since the post of Senior Technical Assistant or Scientific Officer has not been included in the Statute to mean a Teacher, no extension can be given to the definition just to accommodate the petitioner without there being any material and dehors the Statute.

The case of the Petitioner was that he was appointed by his University as Senior Technical Assistant under a scheme of the UGC. A few years later, he was 'promoted' to the post of a Scientific Officer. Referring to a set of guidelines issued by the UGC, wherein, certain members of the technical staff were to be treated equivalent to the status of a teacher, the Petitioner contended that he being a Scientific Officer, was entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years, which was the age of superannuation prescribed for teaching faculty of the University. Accordingly, the Petitioner assailed the impugned order, whereby he was directed to superannuate by the age of 62 years.

Per contra, the University argued that the contention raised by the Petitioner was settled by the decision of the Court in Dr. Rameshwar Rawat v. Chancellor, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya & Ors., wherein it was held that the Senior Technical Assistant or the Scientific Officer being a holder of Class-III post was not entitled to claim benefits that were meant for teaching faculty of the University. Since the said decision was challenged before the Apex Court and was dismissed by its three-judge bench, the University submitted that the principle had become a settled position in law. It was also clarified by the University that the Petitioner was never 'promoted' to the post of a Scientific Officer. Instead, it was just a change in nomenclature of the post of Senior Technical Assistant.

Considering the submissions of the parties and documents on record, the Court observed that the Petitioner had failed to bring any document on record that would assist him in building his argument that his post ought to be treated equivalent to that of a teacher-

There is no material on record in the form of rules providing for promotion of Senior Technical Assistant to the post of Scientific Officer though Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/University submits that reading the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1348/2013 (Dr.Rameshwar Rawat versus Chancellor, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya & Others) decided on 30.10.2015 would make it clear that it was not promotion but the nomenclature of the post of Senior Technical Assistant was changed. Thus, it is apparent that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was entitled to any promotion on the post of Scientific Officer. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner was ever engaged and appointed for the purpose of University Science Instrumentation Centres so as to take advantage of IX Plan Guidelines as contained in Annexure P/5.

Examining the definition of 'Teacher' U/S 4 of the Adhiniyam, the Court observed that neither was the Petitioner's post included under the provision nor was there any direction issued by the University to equate the said post to that of a Teacher under the Adhiniyam-

This brings us to the moot question that whether the petitioner, who is an appointee on a Class-III post and admittedly, who was never appointed under the Scheme of University Science Instrumentation Centre, 1998 can take advantage of the enhanced age of superannuation without inclusion of the post of Senior Technical Assistant/Scientific Officer in the definition of 'Teacher' as is provided in Section 4(XX) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. In the definition of 'Teacher' provided under Section 4(XX) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya, Adhiniyam, 1973, it is evident that the Teacher of the University means the Professors, Readers, Lecturers and such other persons as may be appointed for imparting instruction or conducting research with the approval of the Academic Council of the University.

The meeting of the Screening Committee makes a mention of the rules framed by the Executive Council though the petitioner has not produced those rules but there is no mention of the approval of the Academic Council of the University to include the posts of Senior Technical Assistant or Scientific Officer in the cadre of Teacher or to equate them with the Teacher as defined in Section 4(XX) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya, Adhiniyam, 1973.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court concluded that since the post of the Petitioner could not be considered to be that of a 'Teacher' as defined under the Adhiniyam, he was not entitled to claim the age of superannuation meant for a Teacher. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Representations

Mr. Vibudhendra Mishra for the Petitioner

Mr. Anvesh Shrivastava for the University

Case Title: DR. PRAKASH KUMAR DUBEY v. RANI DURGAWATI UNIVERSITY