(1.) The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 14915 of 1997 by name A. Pichai was working as Assistant Librarian in the year 1997. Since he completed the age of 58 years, he was superannuated.
(2.) The petitioner in W.P. No. 10328 of 1999, by name S. Kaliaperumal was working as the Deputy Librarian. Since he completed the age of 58, he was superannuated. Both the persons have filed the present writ petitions challenging that their age of superannuation is 60 years as that of teachers and not 58 years. Sixty years is applicable only for teaching staff. Therefore, the main point to be considered in these writ petitions is, whether the Librarian, Assistant Librarian or Deputy Librarian are teaching staff within the definition of the University Act or as a non-teaching staff.
(3.) Mr. S. Sethuraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in SYED AMIN KHALANDAR VS. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION AND TWO OTHERS reported in , this Court held that the Librarian in Private Colleges falls within the definition of term 'Teacher' and he referred to the definition of teacher in Madras University Act, 1923, where teachers means such as "Professors, Assistant Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Demonstrators, Tutors, Librarians and other like persons as may be declared to be teachers by the statutes framed under any law for the time being in force governing a university". Following this definition, this Court has held that the post of Librarian also falls within definition of teacher. He referred to another judgment in T.PADMANABHAN VS. THE TAMIL UNIVERSITY, THANJAVUR, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR reported in 2202(2) CTC 754. In that case, The Tamil University Act declare Librarian as belonging to academic staff but Appendix-I to that Act show the post of Librarian as non-academic staff. In these circumstances, the Court held that Librarian is a teacher.