K N SIVASANKARA KAIMAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question arises in these appeals, whether coaches appointed by the University for different games and athletics are "teachers of the University" as defined in S.2(28) of the Calicut University Act. If the answer is in the affirmative, necessarily, they can continue in service until they attain the age of 60 years. On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, they being members of non teaching staff, have to retire on superannuation on completion of the age of 55 years going by the provisions contained in the first statutes. The learned single Judge answered this question in the negative and dismissed the Writ Petitions. So these appeals.

(2.) All the appellants except that in W.A. No. 2174/99 had retired from service. They continued until the age of 60 years on the strength of interim orders passed in the respective Original Petitions. The appellant in W.A. No. 2174/99 is still continuing in service, though he had crossed the age of 55 years on the strength of the interim order passed in that case. The original appellant in W.A. No. 2689/99 is no more. The retrial benefits have to be calculated based on the findings as to whether he was entitled to continue until 60 or 55 years as the case may be. Therefore, his legal representatives have got themselves impleaded to prosecute the appeal further.

(3.) Now, we will proceed to examine the issue involved. All the appellants were appointed as "coaches". This is not disputed. According to the appellants, especially, as averred in Para.18 of the memorandum of the Original Petition in O.P. No. 6337/91, they are taking classes for physical education, imparting classes to the students in the University Departments and affiliated colleges. They are also imparting instructions to the University teams and cocurricular activities including physical education which is a subject of study. Therefore, they are persons imparting instructions to the students. So they shall be regarded as "University Teachers". It is so contended by the other writ appellants as well. The writ appellant in W.A. No. 2175/99 along with C.M.P. No. 41239/99, has produced certain documents, Exts. P15, P16 and P17, whereby the University had appointed him to take classes for certain purposes. According to him, these are sufficient documents issued by the University itself to show that coaches are also imparting instructions and taking classes. Thus, on the basis of these pleadings and materials, they contend that they are University teachers in terms of the definition in S.2(28) of the Calicut University Act. All of them also rely on the decision reported in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University ( AIR 1997 SC 3433 ).