RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra-court appeal preferred u/S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 questions the legality and validity of the interlocutory order dated 30.01.2020 by which learned Single Judge while taking cognizance of W.P. No.1944/2020 declined grant of interim relief sought by the petitioner - which was to continue him in service beyond the age of 62 years on the ground that petitioner being Director of Physical Education in the respondent/University falls within the category of Teacher as defined in M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for brevity "1973 Adhiniyam") and therefore, is entitled to continue in service till the age of 65 years.

(2.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard at length on the question of admission and as well as final disposal.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner/appellant by relying upon the decision of Apex Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao vs A.P. Agricultural University and another , reported in AIR 1997 SC 3433 submits that the said decision and the material available on record are evidence of unimpeachable character requiring no adjudication to establish that the petitioner in his capacity as Director of Physical Education discharges duties and functions similar to that of a Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the definition of expression "Teacher" found in Sec.4 (XX) of 1973 Adhiniyam. In this background it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that rejection of interim relief by the learned Single Judge by impugned order adversely affects the vested right of petitioner to continue in service till the age of 65 years and thus, it seriously prejudices the petitioner thereby rendering the impugned order akin to a final order thus making it immune of the statutory bar contained u/S.2(1) of Adhiniyam, 2005.