Judgment:
ORDER
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-10-1999 (Annexure P-1), by which she has been informed that since the Lady Extension Teachers do not fall under the category of Teachers' in terms of Clause 32 ofJNKVV Statute, 1964, her request for enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 62 years, as applicable in the case of Teachers' of the said Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, cannot be considered. Petitioner has also challenged the retirement notice dated 22nd June, 1999 (Annexure P-2) proposing to retire her w.e.f. 31-7- 2000 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years as also the order Annexure P-8 dated 13th June, 2000, by which she has been retired w.e.f. afternoon of 31-7-2000.
2. The petitioner was working as a Lady Extension Teacher in the Directorate of Extension Services under the respondent-University. According to the petitioner, since she was imparting instructions/education, for all practical purposes, she was required to be treated as a 'Teacher' and conferred the advantage of the age of retirement of Teachers who retire on attaining the age of 62 years. The petitioner also contends that even under the M.P. Shashkiya Sevak (Adhiwarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, as amended by the Government by Act No. 27/1998, she was included within the definition of 'Teacher' which includes every employee appointed for the purpose of teaching in the Institutions, including Technical and Medical Institutions. The petitioner contends that since she was appointed by the Vishwavidyalaya for imparting instructions and was guiding extension programmes, she was very much a Teacher' within the meaning of Section 2 (x) of the Act. The petitioner has, on these premises, challenged her retirement at the age of 60 years and claimed continuance till the age of 62 years.
3. The respondents have filed a Return in which the respondents have submitted that for the purposes of keeping the poor farmers apprised of the latest techniques of agriculture operations, lady extension teachers are appointed who merely communicate the techniques but do not perform the duties of teacher. Reference has been made to the definition of the Teacher' in Section 2 (x) of the JNKW Act, 1964 in support of the contention that only the persons appointed or recognized by the Vishwavidyalaya for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension programmes and such other persons who are declared by the Statutes to be teacher can alone be trealcd as Teacher' within the meaning of the said provision. Reference has also been made to Statute 32 of the JNKW Statutes, 1964 to show that the Teachers of the Vishwavidyalaya are only such servants of the Vishwavidyalaya who are paid by the Vishwavidyalaya for imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension programmes as Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment of the House of Lords in Bonitto v. Fuerst Brothers & Company Limited, reported in 1944 AC 75, in support of the contention that the words and/or are to be read in conjunction with conducting and guiding and, therefore, only when a person conducts or guides the research or extension programme that he can be said to be a teacher and not every person associated with it as a member of the SMS (Subject Matter Specialist) Team. Learned counsel for the respondents has also invited attention to Section 49 of the Act to point out that the appointment of a salariedteacher of the University is permissible only on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted for the purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes. Learned counsel submits that Statute 6 (a) (i) provides for filling up of the posts detailed under Section 12 of the Act except that of Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Deans of Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry while Statute 6 (a) (ii) deals with the appointment of teachers and since the petitioner had not been appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Statute for appointment of teachers, she was not 'teacher' within the meaning of Section 2 (x) of the Act and Statute 32. She could, therefore, not have claimed any parity with teachers in respect of service conditions of teachers including the age of superannuation.
4. The short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the petitioner falls within the definition of 'teacher' contained in Section 2 (x) and Statute 32 of the Act. It is, therefore, necessary first to refer to the definition of 'teacher' contained in Section 2 (x) which reads as under :--
'2 (x) : 'Teacher of the Vishwavidyalaya' means a person appointed or recognised by the Vishwavidyalaya for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/ or extension programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the Statutes to be teacher';
From the above definition, it is clear that only a person appointed or recognised by the Vishwavidyalaya for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension programmes can be said to be a 'teacher' of the Vishwavidyalaya. Apart from the power of the University to recognise a person as a 'teacher', provision can also be made to declare a person to be 'teacher' under the Statutes. Statute 32 describes 'teacher' in the following terms:--
'32. Vishwavidyalaya Teachers.-- (1) Teachers of the Vishwavidyalaya shall be either-
(a) servants of the Vishwavidyalaya paid by the Vishwavidyalaya for imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension programmes as-
(i) Professor,
(ii) Associate Professor,
(iii) Assistant Professor.
Explanation : Any Teacher' subsequently appointed as an 'Officer' as defined under Section 12 of the Act and Statute 3 (except the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor) by promotion or otherwise and bas been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years and holds a lien on a post in the V.V. shall also be a teacher, under this Statute.
(b) persons appointed by the Board as Honorary teachers in anyof the aforementioned categories on such terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe by Regulations.
(2) A teacher shall be eligible to impart instructions and/or conduct or guide research and/or extension programme only upto such standard for which he is recognised as such in accordance with the Regulations made by the Board in this behalf.
(3) A teacher shall perform such functions and discharge such duties as may be prescribed by Regulations by the Academic Council.
(4) The word Teachers/Teacher' wherever it occurs includes person engaged in Research and Extension activities.'
5. The first clause of the Statute includes only Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor as teachers of the University while clause (4) enlarges the scope of the restricted definition contained in clause (1) and includes persons engaged in research and extension activities also within its ambit. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the petitioner Lady Extension Teacher was Teacher' within the meaning of Section 2 (x) and Statute 32 as the meaning of the word 'Teacher' in common parlance must yield to the description contained in these provisions.
6. In Section 2 (3) of the Act, 'extension' has been stated to be all educational programmes undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining the problems of research in agriculture and allied sciences, disseminating the results of research and providing training for the purpose of such dissemination. Before reference is made to the nature of the duties performed by the petitioner, it is necessary to deal with the argument of the learned counsel that appointment of teacher contemplated by Section 49 of the Act is under a different provision of the Statute and the petitioner having not been appointed in accordance with the said procedure, she cannot claim to be a 'teacher' notwithstanding the nomenclature 'Lady Extension Teacher'. In the definition of 'teacher' contained in Section 2 (x) and Statute 32, there is no reference to the method of recruitment which clearly conveys that it is not the procedure through which a person is recruited but the appointment of a person as a teacher or his recognition in that behalf as contemplated in Section 2 (x) which atone is relevant. Therefore, in order to claim parity with the service conditions of teachers, it is necessary for an employee to demonstrate that he was appointed by the Vishwavidyalaya as a teacher or recognised by the Vish-wavidyalaya for the purpose of imparting instructions and conducting and guiding research or extension programmes etc. While it is true that the petitioner was intricately associated with the Extension Programme in her capacity as Lady Extension Teacher for the purpose of creating awareness in the ignorant farmers about the latest techniques in farming, the question that is to be considered is as to whether she was so engaged in the capacity of a teacher. The Statute recognises only Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor as teachers. It also continues the benefit to such of them who having been engaged in teaching for not less than 20 years and holding a lienon a post in a Vishwavidyalaya, are subsequently appointed as officers defined in Section 12 except as Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor. Such teachers it' engaged in research and extension activities also do not lose their status as teachers. Clause (4) of Statute 32 does not contemplate recognition of all persons engaged in research and extension activities as teachers but continues to recognise them as teachers if they are teachers engaged in research and extension activities in whatever other capacity. It is, therefore, only when a teacher is engaged in research and extension activity in a capacity other than teacher that he continues to be a teacher notwithstanding that he is engaged in research and extension activities not as a 'teacher'.
7. It is not the case that the petitioner Lady Extension Teacher was engaged as a Teacher described in Section 2 (x) and Statute 32 in the extension activity of the University. She was merely associating with the team so engaged and merely because she was also imparting instructions in the sense that she was bringing the farmers abreast of the developments and the latest techniques in farming, it can not be said that she was engaged in imparting such instructions as a teacher. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was ever recognised by the University as teacher for the purpose of imparting instructions in extension programmes. While it is true that the designation of the petitioner did suggest that she was a teacher, the word 'teacher' as understood in common parlance must yield to the description contained in the definition and the Statute to which the petitioner does not correspond. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be rejected.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
9. Writ Petition dismissed.