LI Network
Published on: December 15, 2023 at 11:00 IST
The Supreme Court, in its recent observation clarified that the role of a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) or Sports Officer, who may not conduct classes within the conventional four walls of a college, does not disqualify them from being recognized as teachers.
Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, while hearing an appeal by P.C. Modi, a PTI at Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, emphasized that sports training often necessitates open spaces, fields, or courts.
In Modi’s case, the University had notified him of retirement at the age of 60. However, Modi contested this decision, asserting that, as per Statute 32 of the Act, he should be treated as a “teacher” and retire at 62. Despite his argument, he received the retirement order at 60.
The High Court, after initially supporting Modi’s plea, later reversed its decision, leading him to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court critically examined the Act’s definition of ‘Teacher’ and noted its inclusive nature, extending beyond Professor, Associate Professor, or Assistant Professor roles.
Citing the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University, which dealt with a similar issue, the Court emphasized that the definition of “teacher” in this Act aligns with the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act.
The judgment rejected the reliance on the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai by the Division Bench of the High Court, as the circumstances were different.
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant fell within the definition of a “teacher” and should have been allowed to serve until the age of 62. Consequently, Modi was entitled to all corresponding benefits had he continued in service until the stipulated age.
Case Title: P.C. MODI v. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4267 OF 2011
