Sharma, J. - (1.) By the impugned order the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent to continue in service up to the age of 60 years and has held that he cannot be retired at 58 only. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.
(2.) The respondent was holding the post of Deputy Director when he was promoted as Joint Director, Social Welfare Department in 1989. He completed the age of 58 years in January, 1991 when according to the decision of the appellant he had to retire. According to the rules the age of retirement in the department is 58 years excepting for teachers who are to continue in service till 60. It is not disputed that the posts of Deputy Director and Joint Director are not teaching posts and the respondent cannot take advantage of the higher age of retirement on that account. However, the respondent relies upon the Explanation to the Rule which is in the following terms:- "Explanation:For purpose of this sub-rule "Teacher" means a Government servant, by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in an educational institution run by the Government including technical or medical educational institution in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable in such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than 20 years provided he holds a lien Collegiate Technical Medical Educational Service." His case is that since initially he was appointed for the purpose of teaching in an educational institution run by the Government, he is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 although later he was holding a non-teaching post. At this stage it will be relevant to mention that the condition that a person claiming the benefit of the Explanation had to be engaged in a teaching post for not less than 20 years, has been struck down as ultra vires and this part of the Explanation, therefore, does not come in the way of the respondent.
(3.) On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that post of the Superintendent in a Deaf, Mute and Blind School in which the respondent was initially appointed in 1965 was not a teaching post and he, therefore, cannot claim any benefit of this Explanation. The result of the case is thus dependant upon the issue as to whether the post of Superintendent in Deaf Mute and Blind School is a teaching post or not.;