(1.) AN interesting question is raised in this petition. The petitioner Dalappa is aggrieved by a notification dated 5-11-2001 issued by the bangalore University (for short, 'the University' ). He was to retire in terms of the notification on 30-9-2002 on reaching the age of superannu-ation. The petition averments would show that the petitioner obtained b. E. degree in Mechanical Engineering in July 1968. He joined the services as Laboratory Assistant in the year 1972. He obtained M. E. degree in 1990. He was promoted as Superintendent in terms of an order dated 31-1-1995, Annexure-A. Workshop Superintendent is a teacher and having regard to the fact that retirement age for teaching staff is 60 years, he would reach the age of superannuation on 30-9-2004. According to him, Annexure-B is a case of non--application of mind. He has produced sslc certificate at Annexure-C.
(2.) THE petitioner refers to the provisions of the Karnataka State universities Act to contend that the petitioner is a teacher for the purpose of retirement. He has also filed various annexures in support of his contentions that he cannot be termed anything other than a teacher in terms of the law governing the age of superannuation.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and they have filed a detailed statement of objection. In the objection filed by the respondent, they state that the post of Superintendent is a non-teaching post. The petitioner belongs to a non-teaching cadre and therefore, he has to retire at 58 years. His further contention is that the Workshop Superintendent cannot come within the four corners of a teacher within the terms of definition. They want this Court to dismiss the petition. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner and in the rejoinder, it is stated that even under the new Act Librarians, Physical Education Directors, Assistant director of Physical Education etc. , are treated as teachers and therefore, the test is not that of a designation but the duties performed and the functions discharged by an official.