M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 12751 of 1988 dated 26-4-1989 by which a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to be continued in service of the A. P. Agricultural University as a Director of Physical Education till he completed 60 years or whether he was liable to superannuate after completion of 58 years
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant was initially employed as Physical Director in the Bapatla Agricultural College which is a Government college, w.e.f. 4th August, 1986. The Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University was formed under Andhra Pradesh Act 24 of 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) and the abovesaid college stood transferred to the said University by virtue of Section 43 of the said Act w.e.f. 4th May, 1964. The services of the appellant, therefore, stood transferred to the Agricultural University accordingly and the appellant continued to work as Physical Director in the said University. When the appellant was about to complete 58 years, the respondent University sought to retire him on the completion of 58 years. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and initially obtained an order of stay. By virtue thereof he continued for sometime as Physical Director beyond 58 years but subsequently the stay was vacated. According to the appellant the respondent was not right in contending that the age of superannuation for Physical Directors in the University is 58 years. He contends that he is entitled to continue till he completed 60 years as he is also a teacher within the meaning of the said words in Section 2(n) of the Act, Now that the appellant has retired, the decision in this case will be relevant only for the purpose of grant of emoluments for the period after the vacation of the stay and before the completion of 60 years and also for the purpose of computing his retiral benefits.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended by virtue of the definition of teachers in Section 2(n) read along with the material available on record, the appellant came within the main part of the definition of teacher and that the High Court was wrong in coming to a contrary conclusion. According to him the definition in Section 2(n) is an inclusive one and, therefore, must be interpreted as extending to persons other than those included within the inclusionary part of the section, and who come within the main part of the definition. Learned counsel also referred us to Regulations 3 and 33 of the Regulations dated 9-12-1965 prescribed in regard to the conditions of service of teachers and other employees of the university. Counsel also relied upon a letter of the Joint Registrar of the University dated 29-7-1976 and the proceedings of the Education department of the State Government dated 29-11-1976 and 20-4-1987 to contend that Physical Director was treated as a teacher and was not therefore outside the definition of teacher. He also relied upon the additional affidavit filed by the respondent in the Andhra Pradesh High Court to say that going by the duties of the Physical Director as set out in the said additional affidavit, he must be deemed to be a teacher. On the above basis, he contended that the age of superannuation is 60 years applicable to teachers and not 58 years which was applicable to certain other categories of employees.;