ORDER
S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia for quashing order dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P-l) of the respondentNo. 4 and order dated 17-5-2000 (Annexure P-2) of the respondent No. 1 byvirtue of which the petitioner has been retired from 17-5-2000.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as PhysicalTraining Instructor. That post was later on redesignated as Sports Officer. Thedate of birth of the petitioner is 15-3-1939. He attained the age of 60 years on15-3-1999. He continued to work as Sports Officer. It is also not disputed thatby M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam,1998 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') the age of retirement ofteacher has been raised to 62 years. In this Act, definition of 'teacher' has beengiven in the Explanation to Section 2(1-a). That reads : 'for the purpose ofthis sub-rule 'Teacher' means a Government servant by whatever designationcalled, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educationalinstitution including technical or medical educational institutions, in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall alsoinclude the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotionor otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twentyyears provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned School/Collegiate/Technical/Medical education service'.
3. The petitioner's case is that he is also a teacher within the meaning of definition of 'teacher' given above. According to him he is teaching skills of various games and therefore, he is included within the definition of teacher.
4. The respondent No. 4 has basically relied upon the order of the Government referred above and therefore, the petitioner has been retired from 17-5-2000 as he continued to work as Sports Officer upto that date. The respondent No. 1 has also taken shelter under the order dated 29-5-2001 (Annexure R-l). Learned Counsel for both the sides were heard. As mentioned above teacher has been defined in the Explanation to Section 2(1-a) of the Act. According to the Explanation, the definition of 'teacher' is very wide. It means 'Government Teacher' by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching. Therefore, simply because the petitioner has been subsequently designated as Sports Officer instead of Physical Training Instructor he would not go out of the definition of teacher.
5. The Supreme Court has held in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University, AIR 1997 SC 3433, that 'a Physical Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompanies the students team when they go for the inter-University tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his important duties to guide them about the rules of the various games and sports. It is well known that different games and sports have different rules and practices and unless the students are guided about the said rules and practices they will not be able to play the games and participate in the sports in a proper manner. Further, it is inherent in the duties of a Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and techniques of these games and sports. There are large number of indoor and outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach them several skills and the techniques of these games apart from the rules applicable to these games. It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evenings after the regular classes are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical and practical classes for the students so far as physical education is concerned. Among various duties of the Physical Director, expressly or otherwise, are included the duty to teach the skills of various games as well as their rules and practices. The said duties bring him clearly within the main part of the definition as a 'teacher'. He is therefore, not liable to superannuate after completion of 58 years but is entitled to continue till he completed 60 years of service'.
6. In view of the wide phraseology in the definition of 'teacher' given in the Explanation to Section 2 (1-a) of the Act, and in view of the nature of duties of a Physical Training Instructor (Sports Officer) given in the decision of the Supreme Court referred above it must be held that the Sports Officer in M.P. also comes within the definition of teacher. It is well settled that executive order of the Government such as order dated 29-5-2001 (Annexure R-l) can not run contrary to the statutory provisions in the Act of the legislature. As the Sports Officer is covered under the definition of 'teacher' given in this Act he would also be entitled to the benefit of the age of superannuation raised from 60 to 62 years. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P-l) of the respondent No. 4 and order dated 29-5-2001 (Annexure P-l) of the respondent No. 1 must be quashed. It is not in dispute that the rules applicable to Government teachers also apply to teachers of aided College.
7. This writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P-l) of the respondent No. 4 and the order dated 29-5-2001 (Annexure R-l) of the respondent No. 1 are quashed. It is declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to have continued to work as Sports Officer upto the date of attaining the age of 62 years and he will be given all the benefits treating him to be a teacher upto the date of his superannuation.