- (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 of JNKVV 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 Vs. Fuerst Brothers and 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 salaried teacher 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.;