Sports Officer/Physical Training Instructor Also A ‘Teacher’ Under JNKVV Statute: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a sports officer/physical training instructor is also a 'teacher' under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964.
The court said that the definition ‘teacher’ is inclusive in nature and not just confined to a Professor, Associate Professor, or Assistant Professor under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963 (JNKVV Act).
The Court held thus in an appeal filed by a man who was aggrieved by the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench). The Division Bench had set aside the order of the Single Judge in which it was held that the said man working as a sports officer/physical training instructor in JNKVV (University) falls under the definition of a ‘teacher’ and entitled to retire at the age of 62 years.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “Thus, it can be seen that the definition “teacher” is inclusive in nature and not just confined to a Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor, as defined in Statute 32. When Section 2(n) of the A.P. Act is read in conjunction with Statute 32, the word “teacher” encompasses one who is enjoined to impart instructions and/or conduct and guide research and/or extension programmes. 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.”
Advocates L C Patne, Rekha Pandey and Raghav Pandey represented the appellant while Advocate Niraj Sharma represented the respondents.
In this case, the appellant was working as a sports officer/PTI in the College of Agriculture under the respondent University and vide an order, he was informed that on attaining the age of 60 years, he would stand retired from the service with effect from June 30, 2000. He claimed that he was entitled to be continued in the service till June 30, 2002. He urged that since sports officer/PTI working in the University fall under the definition of ‘teacher’, their age of superannuation should also be treated as 62 years by virtue of the decision of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education).
On not receiving a positive response and being aggrieved by the University’s order of retirement, he approached the High Court. The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and being aggrieved by this, the respondent university filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal of the university and set aside the order of the Single Bench. Hence, the matter was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments of both sides noted, “… the appellant was also required to impart different skill sets and playing techniques depending on the nature of the sport, for training the students. Merely because the appellant as 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 further said that the appellant, who was discharging the duties of a PTI/Sports Officer, would fall within the definition of a ‘teacher’ and would be entitled to be continued in service till completion of 62 years of age. It held that he shall be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including arrear of salary.
“… it is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14th December, 2009 and restore the judgment dated 26th April, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. … The retiral benefits of the appellant shall also be computed on a presumption that his age of retirement was 62 years. The entire amount due and payable to the appellant shall be computed by the respondents and paid over to him along with a copy of the said computation within a period of six weeks from today”, also observed the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title- P.C. Modi v. The Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya and Another (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1067)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates L.C. Patne, Raghav Pandey, Gauri Pandey, and Harshit Shishodiya.
Respondents: Advocates Mahima Sharma, Tanya Raizada, G. A. V. Ravi Kumar, Sumit Kumar Sharma, and Raghav Gupta.
