LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee of the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE) is a “teacher” of the University entitled to a retirement age of 60 years under the Kerala University Act, 1974.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: P. Gopinathan Pillai vs. University of Kerala & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: April 8, 2020
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: April 8, 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 272
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can an employee of a University-affiliated center claim the same retirement age as a University teacher? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the retirement age of an employee at the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE) of the University of Kerala. The core issue was whether the appellant, working as an Assistant Director at CACEE, should be considered a “teacher” of the University, thus entitling him to a retirement age of 60 years, or whether he was subject to the standard retirement age of 56 years. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the judgment.
Case Background
P. Gopinathan Pillai was appointed as a Project Officer at the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension (CACEE) on December 26, 1989. The University of Kerala sanctioned his appointment on February 1, 1990. The CACEE implemented the University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scales, and Pillai was given the UGC pay scale. On December 7, 2012, he was promoted to Assistant Director at CACEE. Pillai contended that he was a teacher of the University and should be allowed to continue in service until the age of 60, as opposed to the retirement age of 56 applicable to other employees of CACEE. He filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court seeking a declaration to this effect.
The High Court initially noted a conflict in previous judgments regarding the status of CACEE staff. A single judge referred the matter to a Division Bench, which ultimately dismissed Pillai’s petition, holding that he was not a teacher of the University and therefore not entitled to the retirement age of 60 years.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 26, 1989 | P. Gopinathan Pillai joined CACEE as Project Officer. |
| February 1, 1990 | University of Kerala sanctioned Pillai’s appointment as Project Officer. |
| May 24, 1997 | University of Kerala placed the appellant in the senior scale for lecturer under the UGC Scheme. |
| December 7, 2012 | Pillai was promoted to Assistant Director at CACEE. |
| July 8, 2016 | Kerala High Court dismissed Pillai’s writ petition. |
| April 8, 2020 | Supreme Court dismissed Pillai’s appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The case was initially heard by a single judge of the Kerala High Court, who noted a conflict between two previous judgments: (1) W.A. 1099 of 1988 and (2) W.A. 180 of 1992. Due to this conflict, the single judge referred the case to a Division Bench. The Division Bench, after examining the conflicting judgments, concluded that they were decided based on their specific facts and did not warrant a reference. The Division Bench then proceeded to dismiss the writ petition, ruling that Pillai was not a “teacher” of the University and thus not entitled to the retirement age of 60 years.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974, the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, and the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978. Key definitions include:
- Section 2(27) of the Kerala University Act, 1974: Defines “teacher” as
“a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or such other person imparting instruction or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognised institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University.” - Section 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974: Defines “teacher of the University” as
“a person employed as teacher in any institution maintained by the University.” - Section 2(7) of the Kerala University Act, 1974: Defines “college” as
“an institution maintained by, or affiliated to the University, in which instruction is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations.” - Section 2(19) of the Kerala University Act, 1974: Defines “recognised institution” as
“an institution for research or special studies, other than an affiliated college recognised as such by the University.” - Statute 2(f) of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977: Defines “Department” as
“a Kerala University Department of Study and/or Research or a Department functioning for a specific purpose maintenance at the cost of the Kerala University Fund.”
Statute 10 of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, states that the age of retirement for teachers of the University is 60 years.
Arguments
| Submissions | Appellant’s Arguments | University’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Status as a Teacher |
✓ Pillai is a “teacher” as defined in Sections 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. ✓ He is entitled to all benefits of a University teacher, including a retirement age of 60 years. ✓ The University itself placed him in the senior scale for lecturers under the UGC scheme. |
✓ CACEE is not a statutory University department of study and research. ✓ CACEE is not affiliated to the University but is a scheme sponsored by outside funding agencies. ✓ Pillai was appointed to an administrative post, not a teaching post. ✓ The retirement age for CACEE employees is 56 years. |
| UGC Guidelines | ✓ UGC directed in 1993 that CACEE staff should be treated at par with other teaching staff. | ✓ The University restructured CACEE as a self-supporting center due to lack of funding. |
| Teaching and Research | ✓ Certificates issued by CACEE recognize Pillai’s engagement in teaching and research work. | ✓ Judgments relied on by the appellant were specific to the facts of each case. |
| High Court Judgments | ✓ Several Kerala High Court judgments have declared CACEE staff, particularly Project Directors and Assistant Directors, as “teachers”. | ✓ The judgments relied on by the appellant are distinguishable and were delivered based on their specific facts. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether the appellant, working as Assistant Director in CACEE, was entitled to continue until 60 years of age, the retirement age for teachers of the Kerala University, or whether he was to retire at the age of 56 years.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant working as Assistant Director in CACEE was entitled to continue till 60 years of age? | No | The Court held that the appellant was not a “teacher” of the University as defined under Section 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, and therefore, not entitled to the retirement age of 60 years. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. K. Sivadasan Pillai vs. The University of Kerala and others (W.A.No. 180 of 1992) | Kerala High Court | Distinguished. The Court noted that Dr. Pillai was a Reader in the University before being appointed as Director of CACEE. He had a lien on the post of Reader and was entitled to continue till 60 years. |
| Dr. B. Vijayakumar vs. The University of Kerala and others (W.P.(C) No.3141 of 2004(Y)) | Kerala High Court | Distinguished. The Court noted that the High Court had mechanically followed the judgment in Dr. K. Sivadasan Pillai’s case without considering the distinguishing facts. |
| Dr. V. Reghu vs. The University of Kerala and another (Writ Petition (C) No.25669 of 2004(E)) | Kerala High Court | Distinguished. The Court noted that the High Court had relied on the fact that the petitioner was imparting instruction without considering whether he was a “teacher” under the Act. |
| M.N.C. Bose vs. University of Kerala and Ors. (W.P. (C)No.15447 of 2007(L)) | Kerala High Court | Distinguished. The Court noted that the post of Director of Students Services was a post within the University, unlike the posts in CACEE. |
| S. Ramamohana Rao vs. A.P. Agricultural University and another, 1997 (8) SCC 350 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The Court noted that the appellant was working in the University as Director of Physical Education. |
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 2(27) of the Kerala University Act, 1974: Definition of “teacher.”
- Section 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974: Definition of “teacher of the University.”
- Section 2(7) of the Kerala University Act, 1974: Definition of “college.”
- Section 2(19) of the Kerala University Act, 1974: Definition of “recognised institution.”
- Statute 2(f) of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977: Definition of “Department.”
- Statute 10 of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977: Regarding the retirement age of teachers.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant is a teacher under Section 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. | Rejected. The Court held that the appellant did not meet the criteria of a teacher as defined under the Act. |
| UGC directed that CACEE staff should be treated at par with other teaching staff. | Not sufficient to establish the appellant as a teacher under the Kerala University Act. |
| Certificates issued by CACEE recognize appellant’s engagement in teaching and research work. | Not sufficient to make the appellant a teacher within the meaning of Section 2(27) and 2(28). |
| Kerala High Court judgments have declared CACEE staff as teachers. | Distinguished. The Court found that the judgments were based on specific facts and did not establish a general principle. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Dr. K. Sivadasan Pillai vs. The University of Kerala and others [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that Dr. Pillai was a Reader in the University before becoming Director of CACEE, and thus had a lien on a teaching post.
- Dr. B. Vijayakumar vs. The University of Kerala and others [CITATION]: The Court noted that the High Court had mechanically followed the judgment in Dr. Pillai’s case without considering the distinguishing facts.
- Dr. V. Reghu vs. The University of Kerala and another [CITATION]: The Court noted that the High Court had relied on the fact that the petitioner was imparting instruction without considering whether he was a “teacher” under the Act.
- M.N.C. Bose vs. University of Kerala and Ors. [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the post of Director of Students Services was within the University, unlike posts in CACEE.
- S. Ramamohana Rao vs. A.P. Agricultural University and another [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the appellant was working in the University as Director of Physical Education.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Definition of “Teacher”: The Court emphasized that to be considered a “teacher” under Section 2(27) and 2(28) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, an individual must be imparting instruction or supervising research in a college or recognized institution maintained by or affiliated with the University.
- Nature of CACEE: The Court noted that CACEE was not a statutory department or institution of the University but a self-supporting center established under a scheme. It was not maintained or affiliated with the University.
- Appointment of the Appellant: The Court observed that the appellant was appointed to an administrative post and not a teaching post within the University.
- Distinction of Previous Judgments: The Court distinguished previous judgments of the Kerala High Court, noting that they were based on specific facts and did not establish a general principle that all CACEE employees are “teachers” of the University.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Definition of “Teacher” under the Kerala University Act | 40% |
| Nature and Establishment of CACEE | 30% |
| Appellant’s Appointment as Administrative Post | 20% |
| Distinction from Previous Judgments | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory definitions and the factual circumstances of the case. It rejected the argument that merely imparting instruction at CACEE was sufficient to make an individual a “teacher of the University.”
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “The Centre is not a College within the meaning of Section 2(7) since as per the pleadings of the University, Centre is neither maintained nor affiliated to the University.”
- “The definition of Teacher of University in Section 2(28) also refers to a person employed as Teacher in any institution maintained by the University.”
- “When the appellant does not fulfil the requirement of definition of Teacher or Teacher of University, he cannot claim applicability of Statute 10 of Chapter 3 of the Statutes.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- The judgment clarifies that not all employees of University-affiliated centers are considered “teachers” of the University.
- The definition of “teacher” under the Kerala University Act, 1974, requires that the individual must be imparting instruction or supervising research in a college or recognized institution maintained by or affiliated with the University.
- Employees of self-supporting centers or schemes not directly maintained or affiliated with the University are not automatically entitled to the same benefits as University teachers.
- The judgment highlights the importance of statutory definitions and the specific facts of each case in determining an individual’s status as a teacher.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employee of a center not maintained or affiliated to the University does not become a “teacher” of the University merely by imparting instruction. The Court emphasized the strict interpretation of the definition of “teacher” under the Kerala University Act, 1974. This judgment clarifies the scope of the term “teacher of the University” and sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing that the benefits of a University teacher are not automatically extended to employees of affiliated centers. There was no change in the previous position of the law but the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “teacher of the University” under the Kerala University Act, 1974.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that P. Gopinathan Pillai, as an Assistant Director at CACEE, was not a “teacher” of the University as defined under the Kerala University Act, 1974. The Court emphasized that CACEE was not a statutory department or institution of the University and that Pillai was not appointed to a teaching post within the University. Therefore, he was not entitled to the retirement age of 60 years applicable to University teachers. This judgment clarifies the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “teacher of the University” under the Act and has implications for employees of similar centers or schemes affiliated with the University.