Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE lawyers are observing strike which is contrary to various Supreme Court decisions.
(2.) HEARD the petitioner, Mr. Laxman Singh Rathore, who is present -in -person and on behalf of the respondents, Mr. R.K. Bairwa, Assistant Accounts Officer (Officer -in -Charge), who is also present -in -person. The petitioner present -in -person submits that the controversy in hand is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Somshekhar Vyas Vs. Vice -Chancellor, M.P. Agriculture & Technical University, Udaipur & Anr., CW No. 6220/2011, decided on 05.03.2014 in which, this Court has decided that the Sports Coaches working in the Universities have to be treated at par with the 'Teachers' and pay -fixation accordingly be made in their cases. The petitioner also submits that the controversy is settled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the decision in the case of Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur Vs. Udai Raj Dhabai & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1982/2004, decided on 07.12.2010. The copies of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Udai Raj Dhabhai & Ors. Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 53/2003 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 594/1999, decided on 25.09.2002 which is quoted in the S.B. Order dated 05.03.2014 quoted below and Misc. Application decided on 08.09.2003 and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order dated 07.12.2010 dismissing the University's Appeal are taken on record. The petitioner submits that, therefore, his case may also be disposed of in the same terms as the case of Somshekhar Vyas was decided on 05.03.2014. The order passed by this Court in the case of Somshekhar Vyas on 05.03.2014 is quoted herein below for ready reference: - "1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought following relief/s: - "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: - A/. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the prescribed revised pay scale of University Grants Commission to the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the date of his joining of service. B/. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pay scale of the petitioner as per his entitlement of University Grants Commission Pay scale as any other university teacher. C/. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. D/. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. The petitioner was appointed as 'Coach' (Cricket) with the Diploma from National Institute of Sports in Cricket in Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner on 01.01.2009 in the pay scale of Rs. 5500 -175 -9000. The controversy raised in the present writ petition is as to whether the post 'Coach' is also a 'Teacher' or not, and whether he is entitled to the similar benefit of pay scale as teacher. 3. Dr. Nupur Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohanlal Sukhadia University Vs. Udai Raj Bhandari (sic! Dhabai) & Ors. (DBSAW No. 700/1999 decided on 25.09.2002) and the SLP No. 1982/2004 -Mohanlal Sukhadia University Vs. Udai Raj Bhandari (sic! Dhabai) & Ors. has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench on 07.12.2010. The order dated 25.09.2002 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Udai Raj Bhandari (sic! Dhabai) (supra) is reproduced herein below for ready reference: - "The only point for consideration in these appeals is whether coaches employed by the Mohanlal Sukhadia University (hereinafter referred to as the University) are covered within the definition of teacher. The writ petition was filed by three persons, who had been appointed as coaches in the said University vide order dated 7th August, 1973 and 3rd April, 1979. These three persons were appointed as coaches for Tennis, Cricket and Wrestling respectively after due selection by the Selection Committee under the orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University. The writ petitioners claimed that they were covered in the definition of the word "teacher" as contained in the Act of 1962 and, therefore, they were entitled to UGC pay scales applicable to teachers. Section 2(J) the Act, defines "teacher" as under: - "(J) "Teacher" -means a person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instructions or conducting and guiding research 5 [XX] and includes a person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher." Further, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has drawn our attention of Statute 47 of the said University, which contains classification of teachers. The same is as under: - Teachers Appointed: (i) Professors. (ii) Associate Professors. (iii) Associate Readers. (iv) [Assistant Professors.] (v) Instructors. On the basis of the above definition it is contended that the coaches in the University impart instructions and, therefore, they are clearly included within the definition of teacher. Denial of the grade of teacher by the University to the writ petitions is, therefore, said to be illegal and unjustified. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the writ petitions that it is only the Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur and two Universities, i.e., Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner and Maharanapratap Agricultural University, Udaipur, who are not accepting the position as contended by him. Rest of the Universities in Rajasthan are said to be including coaches in the definition of teacher and are paying them the UGC pay scale admissible to the teachers. Learned counsel submits that three Universities referred above are born out of the Udaipur Universities and, therefore, are having this common Policy and technically these three Universities are one and the same. In reply to the above contention, the learned counsel appearing the University relied upon the Rajasthan Universities. Teachers and Officer (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1984, wherein as per sub -clause (ix) of Section 2, teachers has been defined, as under: - "(ix). "Teacher" means a Professor, a Reader or a Lecturer of any faculty of University and such other person by whatever name designated by or under the relevant law, imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programme in a University." On the basis of the above definition it is contended that teacher is really a person who imparts teaching in a class room by way of actual classes being held or instructions being given or he is supposed to guide research or extension programme in a University. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the University, teacher does not include a coach. We are unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the University the definitions of the word "teacher" contained in Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Act, 1962 or in the Rajasthan Universities, Teachers & Officers (Section for Appointment) Act, 1984, are quoted above. Both of them refer to the function of imparting instructions. Rather the definitions in the Rajasthan Universities Act goes to the extent of using the word by "whatever name designed", which means a broader interpretation is sought to be put on the word "teacher". As a coach is also supposed to be imparting instructions while training the students in the respective categories, he should be included in the definition of teacher. Learned counsel view of the meaning of the word "teacher" by confining to person who are conducting classes in class rooms or lecturing to the students on academic matters. To test the argument of the learned counsel for the University, we would like to refer to a Yoga teacher. As per argument of learned counsel for the University, the Yoga teacher will not be a teacher and will not fall in the category of teachers. Similarly, there are others like music teachers, who train the voice or fingers to play instruments. Then there is art teacher, who trains the students in the art of drawing pictures or other such material. Shall we exclude all these persons from the category of teachers? It is to be noted that this is nobody's arguments that the coaches are required to do any clerical work in the University offices. The only work, the coaches are required to do is to impart training in the respective sports to the students concerned. Whether you call it training or you call it instructions by instructors, it is one and the same thing. Therefore, we are unable to take such a restrictive view of the meaning of the word "teacher" as is suggested by the learned counsel for the University. Coaches being included in the definition of teacher and, therefore, they are entitled to the respective scales. Most of the other Universities in Rajasthan are treating the coaches as teachers. The stand of the University in the present case appears to be wholly unjustified and contrary of law. Learned counsel for the University also argued that these persons were not appointed as teachers and, therefore, they are not entitled to be treated as teachers. This argument has no merit particularly in view of Statute 47 of the University, which contains definition of the word "teacher" which includes instructors. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the University is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by the writ petitions succeeds. However, learned counsel for the appellant in the said appeal has fairly conceded that the payment be restricted with effect from the date of Annex. 1 dated 05.12.90. Both the appeals stand disposed of. Sd/ - (PRAKASH TATIA), J. Sd/ - (ARUN KUMAR), C.J."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert this position.;