Dr. Ramanand Yadu S/o Late Shri Gulam Yadu Aged About 62 Years Resident Of v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Educatin, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Case Details
BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.17 11:20:45 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:32545-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 505 of 2024 Dr. Ramanand Yadu S/o Late Shri Gulam Yadu Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Brahman Para, Dhobipara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Educatin, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bahwan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Director Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through Its Registrar, Amanaka, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492010 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3748 of 2024 Dr. Pramod Kumar Mene S/o Late Shri Prabhakar Aged About 61 Years Occupation - Sports Officer, Govt. D.S.R.V. (P.G.), Sansakrit College Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 2 - Additional Director Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through Its Registrar, Amanaka, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492010. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6354 of 2024 Ajay Kumar Mishra S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Mishra Aged About 62 Years Occupation Sports Officer, Govt. Agrasen College - Bilha District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Resident Of 538, Palm House Opposite C.G. Bhavan Tilak Nagar Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Edcation, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Director Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya Through Its Registrar In Front Of Koni Police Thana, Bilaspur - Ratanpur Road Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) - 495009 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7418 of 2024 Dr. Vipin Chandra Sharma S/o Late Shri Dr. N.M. Sharma, Aged About 62 Years R/o Vallabh Nagar, Sector-6, C298, Near Sant Gnyaneshwar Higher Secondary School, Ring Road No. 1, District-Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 3 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Director, Department Of Higher Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Through Its Registrar, Amanaka, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492010. 5 - The Principal, Government Nagarjuna Post Graduate College Of Science, A-7, Jivan Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7425 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Dr. Bikash Chander Saha S/o Late Shri B.K. Saha Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Shri Ram Tower, H. No. D/4, Behind P N B, G.E. Road, P.O. Tatibandh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Director Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through Its Registrar, Amanaka, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492010. --- Respondent(s) 4 WPS No. 1556 of 2025 Dr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Gaurishankar Tiwari, Aged About 61 Years R/o Behind R.S. Provision Store, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Director, Department Of Higher Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Under Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr.Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent- : Mr.Prafull Bharat, Advocate General assisted State by Mr. Mr.Yashwant Tiwari, Additional Advocate General For Respondent- : Mr.Neeraj Choubey, Advocate University Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Hon'ble Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Prafull Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Mr.Yashwant Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State and Mr.Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University. 5 2. Since all the writ petitions involve common facts and common question of law, therefore, they are being considered and decided by this common order. However, WPS No.505/2004 is taken as a lead case. 3. By way of these writ petitioners, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ declaring the concerned part of Rule (1-e) brought in C.G Fundamental Rules by virtue of "Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 2012" (Annexure P/1) as Ultra Vires being violative and discriminatory to the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Constitution of India. (And/Or). 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ declaring the relevant portion of Para 1 & 2 of Finance Code No. 23/2012 dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure P/2) as Ultra Vires being violative and discriminatory to the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Constitution of India. (And/Or) 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure P/3) passed by Respondent No. 2, which superannuates the petitioner on 31.01.2024. (And/Or) 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and 6 appropriate, even after superannuation. 10.6 Cost of the petition may also be given.” It is pertinent to mention here that except superannuates date, the contents made in reliefs sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions are similar. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are that, being a Doctorate, the petitioner cleared the examination held by Erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, and was appointed as a Sports Officer ( ्ቅीड़ा अधि(cid:7)कारी) by Under Secretary by Erstwhile Higher Education Department (Madhya Pradesh) upon the recommendation of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vide order dated 4th July 1994, and upon such order, the petitioner was initially posted at Government College Kondagaon, Bastar. The cadre of Sports Officer is itself a dying cadre with no promotional avenue; and hence the petitioner is still posted as Sports Officer ( ्ቅीड़ा अधि(cid:7)कारी) in Government Nagarjuna Post Graduate College of Science, Raipur, which is affiliated to Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University. 5. Initially the Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rules (hereinafter "Fundamental Rules") came into effect in the year 1922, which dealt with the conduct of Government Servants, in which, Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules provided for the Age of Superannuation of a Government Servant from their Service in the following manner: 7 “56. Age of Superannuation - (1) Subject to the provisions of the sub-rule (2) every age of superannuation, Government Servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Government Servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the proceeding month on attaining the age of sixty years.” Later, the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh enacted The Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter referred as "Rule 1967" for its brevity), which prescribed amendment in the Fundamental Rules and later, the legislature inserted "1-a through Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) (Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 1998, to increase the age of Superannuation for "Every Government Teacher" from 60 (sixty) to 62 (sixty two) years. Later, after reorganisation of the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2000, in order to carry out another amendment in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the State of Chhattisgarh bought an Amendment in Rule 1967 as Chhattisgarh Shashkiya Sevak (Ardhvarshiki Ayu) (Shanshodhan) Adhiniyam 20124 (Shanshodhan Adhiniyam - 2012). Through the Shanshodhan Adhiniyam-2012 the age of superannuation was increased from 62 (sixty two) years to 65 (sixty five) years. However, through the Shanshodhan Adhiniyam 2012, the term "Every Government Teacher" was substituted with 8 the following sentence "Other than those specified in sub-rule (1- e)" and Hence, "1-e" was inserted citing the following provisions. "(1-e) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), a member of the teaching cadre of a Government College under Higher Education department, Government Engineering College, Government Polytechnic Institute, Government Dental College and a member of nursing teaching faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing in the State Government nursing teaching institution, who is engaged only in class room teaching activities and not occupying non-teaching or administrative post, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month on which he attains the age of sixty five years. Provided that such member of a teaching cadre, who is holding a lien on a teaching post and occupying administrative post, shall have the option of seeking appointment to the teaching post in case he wishes to continue in service up to sixty five years. Provided further that such member of the teaching cadre who retires under this sub-rule, whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of preceding month on attaining the age of sixty five years. Explanation. For the purpose of this sub-rule 'class room teaching' shall mean teaching students in a class room in a course or programme of study in a subject or faculty leading to award of a degree or any other qualification as recognised under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) or the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (52 of 1987), the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Indian Nursing 9 Council Act, 1947 (48 of 1947) or any other law for the time being in force.” The insertion of "1-e" in the Shanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2012 created a sub-classification which led to hostile discrimination amongst "class room teachers" and "sports officers", not being Teachers. Following the Shanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2012, respondent No.3 issued a Finance Code No.23/2015 (hereinafter referred as “Finance Code” for its brevity) on 28.04.2012, communicating all the concerned departments about the increase in age of Teachers working in Higher Education Institution. Alike, the Shanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2012, the said Finance Code also elaborated the reason for increasing the age of superannuation of teachers from 62 to 65 years. However, said Finance Code categorically restricted the benefit to the teachers who are specifically teaching inside class rooms by stating that: “2. ;gkWa mYys[kuh; gS fd v/kZokjf’kdh vk;q esa dh x;h o`f) dsoy Dykl :e f’k{k.k esa yxs gq, f’k{kdksa ds fy, ykxw gksxh] ;g o`f) f’k{kdksa ds led{k lkeoxZ ds fy, ykxw ugha gksxhA m/kkgj.kukFkZ & v/kZokjf’kdh vk;q esa dh x;h o`f) ykbczsjh lkb;Ul vkSj 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk ikB;dzeksa ds Dykl :e f’k{kdksa dks miyC/k gksxh fdarq funs’kd] ’kkjhfjd f’k{kk] yk;czsjh;u bR;kfn inksa ij dk;ZjFk O;fDr;ksa dks miyC/k ugha gksxh] Hkys gh ,sls inksa dks f’k{kdksa ds led{k ekuk x;k gSA” From the aforementioned given para, it can be easily observed that the respondents have classified the teachers who are working inside the class room and the teachers who are not 10 teaching inside the class room "Even if such posts are at par with Teacher". 6. Being aggrieved by the decision of respondents No. 1 and 2, the Chhattisgarh Government University Teachers and Officers Union preferred multiple representations before the concerned authorities since 2012 requesting them to include the "Sports Officer" within the definition of "Teachers" as their education and energy are equally attributable to the students of the University as it is of a "Class room Teacher". Upon receipt of the above representations, respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 03.03.2020 to constitute a Committee in furtherance to examine the grievance of the said Union to increase the age of superannuation of “Sports Officers and Librarians” by referring to the provisions of other neighbouring states. In the said order, it was also directed that the Committee shall release its opinion within 30 (thirty) days of its constitution. It is however till this day, the Committee could not come up with any opinion or resolution over the grievance of the Union. 7. Alike the said petition, one writ petition was filed before this Court sorting for declaration of the Shanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2012 as Ultra Vires, in Hemlal Sahu v. Union of India & others (WPS No.5218/2016). In the said matter though the Court accepted that “the status of class room teachers and sports officer/teachers has been held to be same as teacher” by placing the reliance on P. S. 11 Ramamohan Rao v. A.P Agricultural University, 1997 (8) SCC 350, but dismissed the petition on merits vide order dated 19.05.2021. 8. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of P.C. Modi v. The Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwavidyalaya and Anr., (Civil Appeal No.4267 of 2011, decided on 13th December, 2023), while dealing with the similar question of law as to whether Sports/PTI Officers falls within the expression "Teachers" or not. The Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to the judgment of P. S. Ramamohan Rao (supra), and held that, the definition of teacher is inclusive in nature and includes the PTI/Sports Officer, and not just the professors, associate professor or assistant professor. Even after the specific judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.C. Modi (supra), respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 09.01.2024, with respect to superannuation of professors / assistant professors / librarians / sports officers/registrars, which includes the name of the ptitioner at Serial no.1 on attaining the age of 62 years which ensures that the petitioner will be retiring on 31.01.2024. Hence, these writ petitions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment made in Rule 56 “(1-e)” of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, as amended by Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Ardhwarshiki Ayu) (Shanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2012, as ultra vires being violative and discriminative 12 to the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. He submits that the discrimination is made by virtue of “Sanshodhan Adhimniyam, 2012” (Annexure P/1) and para 1 & 2 of Finance Code No. 23/2012 dated 28.04.2012 (Annexure P/2) in the petition. The petitioners are forced to take the retirement at the age of 62 years instead of 65 years which is in further against the dictum of judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of P.C.Modi (supra). After the pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.C. Modi (supra), it is no longer res integra that a Sports Officer/teacher is at par with the teacher who teaches inside the class room. The Hon'ble Apex Court also placed its reliance upon the Judgment of P. S. Ramamohan Rao (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appellant. It was held that "the duties being discharged by him as a physical director brought within the definition of teacher and therefore he was entitled to continue in service till the completion of 60 years of age." He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.C. Modi (supra) compared the definition of "Teacher" mentioned in Section 2(n) of Andhra Pradesh Act 1963 & Section 2(x) of Jawaharlal Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act 1963 and held that: “8. Thus, it can be seen that the definition "teacher" is inclusive in nature and not just confined to a Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor, as defined in Statute 32. When Section 2(n) of the A.P. Act is read in conjunction with Statute 32, the word "teacher" 13 encompasses one who is enjoined to impart instructions and/or conduct and guide research and/or extension programmes. The definition being inclusive in nature would have to be read expansively and when read in the context of PTI/Sports Officer, it cannot be denied that the appellant while discharging his duties was required to impart instructions relating to the rules and practices adopted for various categories of sports. Besides that, the appellant was also required to impart different skill sets and playing techniques depending on the nature of the sport, for training the students. Merely because the appellant as a PTI/Sports Officer was not expected to conduct classes within the four walls of the College, as in the case of a Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor, would not by itself make him ineligible for being treated as a teacher for all practical purposes inasmuch as most sports require training in open spaces/fields/courts etc.” Similarly, herein this case, the Section 2(xx) of the Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 also defines "Teachers of the University" which is substantially similar to Section 2(x) of Jawaharlal Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act 1963. Hence, it would not be out of place to mention that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.C. Modi (supra) squarely applies to the present facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that a Sports Officer in a college is very much a "Teacher" because they also impart instructions to the students of the College in Physical Education & it need not be mentioned that a class of Physical Education is not possible to be 14 held inside any class room. Any preferential treatment without reasonable classification to one specific class is an utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the Act of the legislation to introduce Rule (1-e) in the C.G Fundamental Rules by virtue of "Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 2012" is nothing but an act of sub-classification in an equal class of employees. Citing a difference of imparting education inside or outside of the class room is certainly not an act of Intelligible differentia and rather it amounts to discrimination between similarly placed teachers who are discharging the same duties. As any sub-classification within the same class is violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the University (Respondent No. 4) under which the College of the petitioner is affiliated has also adopted the discriminatory approach to superannuate all the employees of the University other than the teachers at the age of 62 years. The said respondent enacted Statute No. 31 titled as Conditions Of Service For University Employees under which Clause 4(3) clearly states that the classification of the age of superannuation between "University Employees other than the teachers" and "teachers"; wherein the employees of the University (Other than the teachers) are prescribed to be retired at the age of 62 years and the "teachers" are prescribed to required at the age of 65 years (effective from 01.04.2012). Further, the term "effective from 01.04.2012" used in Statute - 31 makes it clear that the 15 distinctive age of superannuation has been adopted in the Statute Mutas Mutandis to the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2012 (Annexure P/1). Hence, the said impugned amendment is nothing but an act of discrimination towards a certain class without their being any
Decision
reasonable differentiation. As such, the writ petitions deserves to be allowed. He relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam and Sons, (2015) 10 SCC 681 and Ramakrishna Grover v. Union of India, (2020) 12 SCC 506 (para 41). 10. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the vires has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WPS No.5218 of 2016 (Hemlal Sahu v. Union of India and others), decided on 19.05.2021 and the case of the petitioner is based on the judgment of P.C.Modi (supra)’. In P.C.Modi (supra) the Sports Teacher having been categorized as a Teacher, therefore, this amendment is void. Once the Division Bench of this Court has held the vires upheld, it would amount to review. He further submits that change in law would not be applicable in review and the definition given in P.C.Modi (supra) and the definition given in our statute are entirely different and the State has specified who are Teachers and also taken into consideration the Sports Teacher. He also submits that the present petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and accordingly is liable 16 to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. This is so because the amendment in the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules with respect to the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years have been carried out in the year 2012, whereas the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2024 seeking declaration of the said amendment to be ultra vires that too after passage of about 12 years and for such fatal delay, no explanation has been offered by the petitioner in the instant petitions. He also submits that the petitioner himself has annexed Annexure P/6 which is judgment dated 19.05.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court where subject matter of the present petition was similar and this Court after considering the facts and the relevant provisions of the Act applicable in that case has arrived to a conclusion that the validity and propriety that has been brought to challenge to get declaration that the relevant amended provisions under the Act of 1967 amounts to hostile discrimination and unreasonable classification cannot be ordered in favour of the petitioners. In the present case, the same amended provisions has been brought into challenge by the petitioners, knowing very well that already this Court has refused to interfere with the amended provisions of the Act of 1967 and the judgment passed in Hemlal Sahu (supra) has not been challenged by the aggrieved party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, it has attained its finality and now again filing the identical petitions seeking similar relief from this Court does not 17 sound to be in harmony with the judicial discipline. He contended that the reliance of the petitioners on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PC Modi (supra) is distinguishable on the basis of the facts and interpretation with the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the issues in P.C. Modi (supra) was at an event to visit the definition of teachers mentioned in Section 2 [n] of the Andhra Pradesh Act, 1963 and Section 2 (x) of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963. The say of the petitioner that in present case also the Section 2[xx] of Chhattisgarh Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 also defines Teachers of the University which is substantially similar to Section 2(x) of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963. Relying upon the comparison according to the petitioner, the ratio lead by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.C. Modi (supra) squarely applies in the present case. He further contended that the petitioner has made an effort to interpret the term “Sports Officer” in a College to be at par with the Teacher because they also impart instructions to the students of the College in Physical Education and it has also been averred by the petitioner that the class of Physical Education is not possible to be held inside any class room. The classification according to the petitioner preferential treatment without reasonable classification to one specific Class and therefore, it is a violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner is an employee of the college run by the State 18 Government. His services are governed by the Rules of 1990. For the purpose of considering age of superannuation, service of the petitioner is governed by the Act of 1967. The UGC has formulated the Regulation under Section 26 of the Act of 1956. Regulations were notified from time to time and Regulation of 2010 is applicable for consideration in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The universities are being recognized by the UGC in accordance with the Regulations made under the Act of 1956. Age of superannuation of class room teachers of the Central Educational Institutions was enhanced to 65 years vide order dated 23.3.2007 to attract eligible persons to teaching carrier and to retain teachers in service for longer period. Under the Appendix-1 to Regulations of 2010, benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation has not been made available to the Librarians and Directors of Physical Education and their age of superannuation has been remained as it is i.e., 62 years, under clause 8(f). They have been specifically excluded. The State Government has made amendment in the Act of 1967 precisely under Rule 56 of the State Fundamental Rules. Under the Explanation of amended Rule 2 (1-e), 'class room teaching' has been explained to be teaching in a course or programme of study leading to award of a degree or any other qualification as recognized under the Act of 1956 and others. The determination of standards in institution for higher education or research and scientific and technical institution is made part of Entry-66 of List 19 1 under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entry 66 reads as under: "66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions." Education is made part of Entry No.25 of List-3 under the Seventh Schedule, which reads as under:- “25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the List I; vocational and technical training of labour". Perusal of the aforementioned two entries i.e. Entry-66 in List I and Entry 25 in List III, makes it clear that Entry 25 in List-III is subject to provisions of entries made in Entry No.63, 64, 65, 66 of List 1. The State is having an authority to frame laws with regard to education subject with respect to coordination and determination of to provisions of Entry 66 in List 1. Entry No.66 of List I is standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. It is very specific for that purpose only. For the purpose of imparting higher education, the State Government has established colleges affiliated to the University and for the purpose of appointing the teachers and other staff had framed rules known as Rules of 1990. As the universities and the institutions affiliated to the universities are governed with the Act of 1956, the educational qualification for 20 appointment of teachers, sports officers, librarians etc. has been mentioned in Schedule-3 of the Act of 1990 to be in accordance with norms prescribed by the UGC. The requirement of qualification as per UGC norms is only to comply with the Regulations framed by the UGC from time to time on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education. A bare perusal of aforementioned constitutional provisions, the Act of 1956 and the Regulations framed thereunder, makes it very clear that the Act of 1956 is having the object to make provision for co-ordination and determination of the standards in institution for higher education. The heading of Regulation also makes the purpose clear of its enactment. Clause 8 of Appendix I of the Regulations of 2010 i.e. Other Terms and Conditions including age of superannuation, are for the employees of central educational institutions. For the purpose of governing service conditions of the government employees, the State Government is having authority to frame rules. For the purpose of appointment of the teachers and other staffs like sports officer, librarians etc. the qualification prescribed by the UGC in its Regulations is to be followed or made applicable under the rules framed by the State. 11. He also contended that the role of Regulations framed under the Act of 1956 is only to prescribe academic standards, qualification required for the appointment of teaching staff and facilities 21 required in higher Education Institution. The UGC under no circumstance is empowered to prescribe to conditions of service in relation to the State Government Employee. Perusal of the amendment which is under challenge as made in the Act of 1967 by inserting Rule section 2[le) would show that amendment has not been made adopting appendix one of the regulations of 2010. It has to be taken into account that the present maintainable on account as such the petitioner has not challenged the clause 8 F of the Appendix one of regulations of 2010 framed under the Act, 1956 and has not arrayed the UGC as Party respondent. He submitted that the petitioner has taken a ground of hostile discrimination and sub-classification within the Class, but has miserably failed to establish that on what ground the petitioner is challenging the vires of the legislation on the ground of hostile discrimination and sub-classification within the class and has failed to discharge the burden to prove the action of amendment to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India equals have been treated as unequals. Further, it is respectfully submitted that "Teacher” includes a Professor, Reader, Lecturer or other person appointed or recognized by the University / Colleges for the purpose of imparting education etc. to the students and any person declared by the statutes to be a teacher." There is rationale for making classification between the Sports Officer and the Class room Teacher as the Class room Teacher imparts education inside the class leading to secure a 22 degree or any qualification, whereas the Sports Officer provides the coaching / training of right techniques for playing specific sports and helps the students to learn and develop the skills in the sports activities that too outside the class room. Under these circumstances, the Sports Officer cannot be treated as Class room teacher and accordingly the Sports Officer would not be eligible for enhancement of age of superannuation till 65 years of age. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that the enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years is with a particular object i.e., to meet the shortage of teachers and the said enhancement of the age of superannuation is confined to a specific class of employee i.e. the teachers involved in class room teaching. Therefore, the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years cannot be extended to the Sports Officer. Since there is no shortage of Sports Officer, the increase in the age of superannuation is not at all required. He further submitted that in catena of the judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not entirely prohibit classification but classification is permissible if found on intelligible differentia which distinguishes the persons that are group together from other left outs of the groups having the nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The amendment and the insertion of the sub-Rule i.e., in section 2 of the Act of 1967 it is apparent that entries have only been made for the Teachers engaged in institutions in class room teaching. Further, the class 23 room has been explained by way of explanation given in the amended provisions that is 2ii, i.e. of the Act, 1967 which clarifies that the class room teaching shall mean teaching students in the class room in a course or programme of studies in subjects leading to award of degree. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner has pleaded that he is not imparting education to the students inside the class room, he has given an explanation that physical exercise and teachings to the students cannot be given inside class room for that reason the Physical Education is imparted outside the class room. On the basis of the admission and not controverting the fact that the petitioner is a sports officer and not a teacher itself shows that the petitioner has accepted his status other than Teacher. The scope of duties and activities of Sports Officer is different and has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. From perusal of the duties and functions of the Physical Director, which is similar to the work of Sports Officer, it is clear that it is only with regard to arrangement of games and sports activities within the college, inter-tournaments colleges and inter universities tournaments. The duties and functions of Sports Officer are not having any relevance and importance with regard to the course which the students are pursuing for obtaining a degree in the said college in a particular subject. From the duties and functions as discussed in the aforementioned case, it is apparent that the students learning techniques of any sport will not have any impact with the 24 result to be declared by college or university for the purpose of grant of degree of the course which any student is pursuing except the course of B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed., whereas the duties and functions of the teachers engaged in class room teaching have an obligation to impart education with regard to subjects which the students are pursuing and to be considered for the award of marks for preparation of result to be considered for grant of degree. The qualification prescribed for appointment of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, University Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian /college librarian, Director of Physical Education & Sport, Deputy Director of Physical Education and Sports /College Director of Physical Education and Sports, Assistant Director of Physical Education/College, Director of Physical Education and Sports, minimum qualifications have been prescribed for appointment under "the Regulations of 2010". From perusal of the qualifications prescribed would show that the Director or Assistant Director of Physical Education and in case at hand, the Sports Officer have to pass the physical fitness test norms as prescribed under Clause 4.6.4 of the Regulations of 2010. The requirement to undergo physical fitness test is only for the Assistant Director of Physical Education in University or college, Director of Physical Education and Sports. (Sports Officers for this case). In the light of the above, if responsibilities and duties of the Sports Officers and the Class room Teachers are taken into consideration, both 25 stand on different footing. Further perusal of the amendment which has been brought in by the State Government under the Adhiniyam of 1967 by way of the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ahu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2012 would show that the class room teachers have been given benefit of increase in age of superannuation i.e., teachers who are engaged in teaching subjects which are relevant for the purpose of preparation of mark-sheet and award of degree. Class room teachers will teach the students with their experience which they have gained during their long period of service, which shall be beneficial and in the interest of students. The reason as stated for enhancement of the age of superannuation of the class room teachers is shortage of teachers. In the instant writ petitions, the petitioner has failed to raise any sound grounds for grant of any relief as sought for. The instant petitions, being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. In Hemlal Sahu (supra), the petitioner had sought for declaration that Rule 56 (1-e) of the Fundamental Rules, applicable and amended by Chhattisgarh Shashkiye Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2012 is ultra vires; quashment of the order dated 26.6.2015 (Annexure P-1); and benefit of 26 enhancement of age of superannuation to the petitioner from 62 to 65 years, as has been enhanced for the Class room Teachers, which is somewhat similar relief as has been sought for by the petitioners in the instant writ petitions. The Division Bench of this while dismissing the writ petition has observed in Hemlal Sahu (supra) as under:- “25. From perusal of the duties and functions of the Physical Director, which is similar to the work of Sports Officer, it is clear that it is only with regard to arrangement of games and sports activities within the college, inter-colleges tournaments and inter universities tournaments. The duties and functions of Sports Officer are not having any relevance and importance with regard to the course which the students are pursuing for obtaining a degree in the said college in a particular subject. From the duties and functions as discussed in the aforementioned case, it is apparent that the students learning techniques of any sport will not have any impact with the result to be declared by college or university for the purpose of grant of degree of the course which any student is pursuing except the course of B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed., whereas the duties and functions of the teachers engaged in class room teaching have an obligation to impart education with regard to subjects which the students are pursuing and to be considered for the award of marks for preparation of result to be considered for grant of degree. The qualification prescribed for appointment of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, University Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian / college librarian, Director of Physical Education & Sport, Deputy Director 27 of Physical Education and Sports / College Director of Physical Education and Sports, Assistant Director of Physical Education/College, Director of Physical Education and Sports, minimum qualifications have been prescribed for appointment under “the Regulations of 2010”. From perusal of the qualifications prescribed would show that the Director or Assistant Director of Physical Education and in case at hand, the Sports Officer have to pass the physical fitness test norms as prescribed under Clause 4.6.4 of the Regulations of 2010. The requirement to undergo physical fitness test is only for the Assistant Director of Physical Education in University or college, Director of Physical Education and Sports. (Sports Officers for this case). 26. In the light of the above, if responsibilities and duties of the Sports Officers and the Class Room Teachers are taken into consideration, both stand on different footing. Further perusal of the amendment which has been brought in by the State Government under the Adhiniyam of 1967 by way of the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ahu) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2012 would show that the class room teachers have been given benefit of increase in age of superannuation i.e. teachers who are engaged in teaching subjects which are relevant for the purpose of preparation of mark sheet and award of degree. Class room teachers will teach the students with their experience which they have gained during their long period of service, which shall be beneficial and in the interest of students. The reason as stated for enhancement of the age of superannuation of the class room teachers is shortage of teachers. 27. In the Regulations framed by the UGC under the Act 28 of 1956 increase in the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years is of the teachers engaged in class room teaching in the universities and institutions run by the Central Government assigning the reason that there is shortage of teachers. The State Government by way of amendment under challenge has also increased the age of superannuation of the class room teachers from 62 to 65 years. The class room teaching has been explained widely. From the explanation given to ‘class room teaching’ it is apparent that the teachers who are engaged in teaching a class or programme of study in a subject or faculty leading to award of degree . From the nature of duties & responsibilities, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, between the Sports Officer and Class Room Teacher is considered, it is apparent that the petitioner being a Sports Officers cannot be treated as equal to class room teachers for extending benefit of the increase in age of superannuation. 29. Reason assigned for extending age of superannuation of class room teacher is to meet out the shortage of class room teachers. It is for the experts to consider the need which exists and not for the Court to give its opinion. The legislation which is put to challenge is only with regard to increase in age of superannuation of a particular class of teacher i.e. class room teacher, which in the opinion of this Court has been made with intelligible differentia and with an object to avoid shortage of class room teachers. 30. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the petitioner failed in his challenge to get a declaration that amended provision under the Act of 1967 amounts to hostile discrimination and 29 unreasonable classification. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.” The Division Bench of this Court has refused to interfere with the amended provisions of the Act of 1967 and the order passed in Hemlal Sahu (supra) has not been challenged by the aggrieved party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus it has attained its finality and now again filing the identical petitions seeking somewhat similar relief from this Court does not sound to be in harmony with the judicial discipline. As such, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PC Modi (supra) is distinguishable on the basis of the facts and interpretation with the present case. The vires has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Hemlal Sahu (supra). Once this Court has upheld the vires, it would amount to review. 14. For the foregoing reasons and in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Hemlal Sahu (supra), we are of the considered view that the petitioners failed in their challenge to get a declaration that amended provision of the Act of 1967 amounts to hostile discrimination and unreasonable classification. As such, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Dattu Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Bablu