the Assistant Librarian in the University is not entrusted with any duties of teaching and there was no basis for the claim of the respondent to be continued upto 60 years. ?= The classification of an employee of an organization into a particular category would depend upon the relevant rules as well as the nature of duties that are assigned to the incumbent in general. Mere assignment of duties to an individual without reference to any general duty chart cannot be a factor to be taken into account, in this behalf. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. We, however, direct that the appellant shall not be entitled to recover any amount paid as emoluments to the respondent for the period during which he worked after attaining the age of 58 years. There shall be no order as to costs.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No.831 of 2006
01-12-2014
Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rep. by its Registrar, Rajendra
Nagar, Hyderabad. . Appellant
E.D. Livingston, S/o.E. Nathaniel, Agricultural College, Bapatla, Guntur
District.. Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T. DURGA REDDY
Counsel for Respondent: SRI ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVALI
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (1997) 8 SCC 350
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
and
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No.831 of 2006
JUDGMENT: (per the Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
It is natural that in every University, there would be teaching
and non-teaching posts. By and large, the age of superannuation
of teachers is fixed at 60 years and for non-teaching staff, it is fixed
at 58 years.
The sole respondent herein was appointed as an Upper
Division Clerk in the appellant-University. Over the period, he
acquired the qualifications of B.L.I.Sc. and M.L.I.Sc. The post of
Assistant Librarian became vacant and he was appointed against it
in the year 1984. In the University Library, there were other
incumbents also, who were working as Assistant Librarians.
The appellant sought to retire the respondent from service on
attaining the age of 58 years. The latter filed W.P.No.22878 of
1998 for a writ of mandamus to declare that the person holding the
post of Assistant Librarian is entitled to continue in service till he
attains 60 years of age and that the proposal of the University to
retire him before that age is contrary to law. The Writ Petition was
opposed by the appellant by filing a counter affidavit. It was
pleaded that the term teacher is defined in the statutes and the
post of Assistant Librarian does not fit into it. It was also urged
that the Assistant Librarian in the University is not entrusted with
any duties of teaching and there was no basis for the claim of the
respondent to be continued upto 60 years. The learned Single
Judge allowed the Writ Petition through order dated 06.04.2006.
Hence, this Writ Appeal.
Sri T. Durga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant submits that by no stretch of imagination, an Assistant
Librarian can be treated as teacher particularly in a professional
University like the appellant. He contends that except that the
Assistant Librarian is required to maintain the books by indexing
them and guiding the students to use the books, he is not
entrusted with the duties of the teaching at all. He contends that
though two Writ Petitions, being W.P.Nos.22878 of 1998 and
21035 of 2002, were filed by the persons holding the post of
Assistant Librarian, the learned Single Judge dismissed one, but
allowed the other, on the same day.
Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavali, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that notwithstanding the fact that the
predominant duties of the Assistant Librarian are to upkeep the
Library and to maintain and index the books, the University itself
issued circulars assigning some teaching duties also to him and
since such duties were performed by the respondent herein, the
learned Single Judge has rightly granted the relief. He contends
that when the person holding the post of physical director is
treated as a teacher, there is no reason why the post of Assistant
Librarian cannot be treated in that manner.
The appellant has placed before this Court the copies of the
two judgments dated 06.04.2006 in W.P.Nos.22878 of 1998 and
21035 of 2002. Both the writ petitions were filed by the Assistant
Librarians. The first one was allowed and the second one was
dismissed through different judgments of the same day. What
weighed with the learned Single Judge to take a different view was
that the respondent herein was assigned some teaching duties,
and the petitioner, in the other writ petition, was not. Therefore, it
needs to be seen as to whether such an approach can be
countenanced.
In both the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has
undertaken discussion on the touchstone of the relevant
provisions of the statutes, and the judgment of the Supreme Court
in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and
observed that the definition of word teacher under Section 2(n) of
the A.P. Agricultural University Act refers to a person, who was
appointed as such, or recognized by the University, in the context
of imparting instructions or conduct or guide research and not
otherwise. It was observed that the post of Assistant Librarian
does not fall into that definition.
In P.S. Ramamohana Raos case, the Supreme Court took
the view that the Physical Director gives guidance and teaching to
the students and the various duties that are assigned to him bring
him within the purview of the teacher. Such is not a case with a
Librarian. It is no part of his duty to teach the students that too in
a specialized subject like agriculture, which he did not have any
occasion to deal with, at any point of time.
Much emphasis was laid by the respondent on the list of
duties, which included conduct orientation classes to fresh
students. A Circular issued in this regard is also placed before
this Court. A perusal of the same discloses that along with five
officials of the University, a Librarian is required to guide the fresh
entrants, as to the manner in which they can have access to the
library. Even by stretched interpretation of that clause, one cannot
come to the conclusion that an Assistant Librarian is assigned
with duties of teaching. The learned Single Judge, in fact, arrived
at the same conclusion. What, however, weighed with him was
that the appellant herein was assigned with duties of teaching on
certain occasions. Even that, was by the Principal of the College
and not as a matter of compliance with the general circular or
statutes issued by the University. The so-called teaching was about
the manner in which the library facilities are to be used. The
petitioner in the other writ petition was denied the relief on the sole
ground that he did not take such classes.
The classification of an employee of an organization into a
particular category would depend upon the relevant rules as well
as the nature of duties that are assigned to the incumbent in
general. Mere assignment of duties to an individual without
reference to any general duty chart cannot be a factor to be taken
into account, in this behalf.
We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. We,
however, direct that the appellant shall not be entitled to recover
any amount paid as emoluments to the respondent for the period
during which he worked after attaining the age of 58 years. There
shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Appeal shall
stand disposed of.
__________________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Date: 01.12.2014
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
WRIT APPEAL No.831 of 2006
01-12-2014
Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rep. by its Registrar, Rajendra
Nagar, Hyderabad. . Appellant
E.D. Livingston, S/o.E. Nathaniel, Agricultural College, Bapatla, Guntur
District.. Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T. DURGA REDDY
Counsel for Respondent: SRI ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVALI
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (1997) 8 SCC 350
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
and
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No.831 of 2006
JUDGMENT: (per the Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
It is natural that in every University, there would be teaching
and non-teaching posts. By and large, the age of superannuation
of teachers is fixed at 60 years and for non-teaching staff, it is fixed
at 58 years.
The sole respondent herein was appointed as an Upper
Division Clerk in the appellant-University. Over the period, he
acquired the qualifications of B.L.I.Sc. and M.L.I.Sc. The post of
Assistant Librarian became vacant and he was appointed against it
in the year 1984. In the University Library, there were other
incumbents also, who were working as Assistant Librarians.
The appellant sought to retire the respondent from service on
attaining the age of 58 years. The latter filed W.P.No.22878 of
1998 for a writ of mandamus to declare that the person holding the
post of Assistant Librarian is entitled to continue in service till he
attains 60 years of age and that the proposal of the University to
retire him before that age is contrary to law. The Writ Petition was
opposed by the appellant by filing a counter affidavit. It was
pleaded that the term teacher is defined in the statutes and the
post of Assistant Librarian does not fit into it. It was also urged
that the Assistant Librarian in the University is not entrusted with
any duties of teaching and there was no basis for the claim of the
respondent to be continued upto 60 years. The learned Single
Judge allowed the Writ Petition through order dated 06.04.2006.
Hence, this Writ Appeal.
Sri T. Durga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant submits that by no stretch of imagination, an Assistant
Librarian can be treated as teacher particularly in a professional
University like the appellant. He contends that except that the
Assistant Librarian is required to maintain the books by indexing
them and guiding the students to use the books, he is not
entrusted with the duties of the teaching at all. He contends that
though two Writ Petitions, being W.P.Nos.22878 of 1998 and
21035 of 2002, were filed by the persons holding the post of
Assistant Librarian, the learned Single Judge dismissed one, but
allowed the other, on the same day.
Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavali, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that notwithstanding the fact that the
predominant duties of the Assistant Librarian are to upkeep the
Library and to maintain and index the books, the University itself
issued circulars assigning some teaching duties also to him and
since such duties were performed by the respondent herein, the
learned Single Judge has rightly granted the relief. He contends
that when the person holding the post of physical director is
treated as a teacher, there is no reason why the post of Assistant
Librarian cannot be treated in that manner.
The appellant has placed before this Court the copies of the
two judgments dated 06.04.2006 in W.P.Nos.22878 of 1998 and
21035 of 2002. Both the writ petitions were filed by the Assistant
Librarians. The first one was allowed and the second one was
dismissed through different judgments of the same day. What
weighed with the learned Single Judge to take a different view was
that the respondent herein was assigned some teaching duties,
and the petitioner, in the other writ petition, was not. Therefore, it
needs to be seen as to whether such an approach can be
countenanced.
In both the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has
undertaken discussion on the touchstone of the relevant
provisions of the statutes, and the judgment of the Supreme Court
in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and
observed that the definition of word teacher under Section 2(n) of
the A.P. Agricultural University Act refers to a person, who was
appointed as such, or recognized by the University, in the context
of imparting instructions or conduct or guide research and not
otherwise. It was observed that the post of Assistant Librarian
does not fall into that definition.
In P.S. Ramamohana Raos case, the Supreme Court took
the view that the Physical Director gives guidance and teaching to
the students and the various duties that are assigned to him bring
him within the purview of the teacher. Such is not a case with a
Librarian. It is no part of his duty to teach the students that too in
a specialized subject like agriculture, which he did not have any
occasion to deal with, at any point of time.
Much emphasis was laid by the respondent on the list of
duties, which included conduct orientation classes to fresh
students. A Circular issued in this regard is also placed before
this Court. A perusal of the same discloses that along with five
officials of the University, a Librarian is required to guide the fresh
entrants, as to the manner in which they can have access to the
library. Even by stretched interpretation of that clause, one cannot
come to the conclusion that an Assistant Librarian is assigned
with duties of teaching. The learned Single Judge, in fact, arrived
at the same conclusion. What, however, weighed with him was
that the appellant herein was assigned with duties of teaching on
certain occasions. Even that, was by the Principal of the College
and not as a matter of compliance with the general circular or
statutes issued by the University. The so-called teaching was about
the manner in which the library facilities are to be used. The
petitioner in the other writ petition was denied the relief on the sole
ground that he did not take such classes.
The classification of an employee of an organization into a
particular category would depend upon the relevant rules as well
as the nature of duties that are assigned to the incumbent in
general. Mere assignment of duties to an individual without
reference to any general duty chart cannot be a factor to be taken
into account, in this behalf.
We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. We,
however, direct that the appellant shall not be entitled to recover
any amount paid as emoluments to the respondent for the period
during which he worked after attaining the age of 58 years. There
shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Appeal shall
stand disposed of.
__________________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Date: 01.12.2014
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Comments
Post a Comment