1 2025:CGHC:58708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6296 of 2025 Order reserved on 02/09/2025 Order delivered on 03/12/2025 1 - Dr. Madhav Pandey S/o Late Shre C.G. Pandey, Aged About 61 Years Occu.- Librarian, Indra Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Krishak Nagar Dist- Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Through Its Registrar Indra Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Distt- Raipur C.G. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Verma, Advocate and Mrs. Jyoti Praveen Verma, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order 1. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming the following relief(s):- “(i) That this Hon. Court may be pleased to issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.6.2024 ANNEXURE P/17 and after quashing the same it may be pleased to issue a writ in VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.05 18:33:21 +0530 2 the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the petitioner till the age of 65 years i.e. 31.8.2028 with all consequential benefit and full pay. (i-a) Therefore, it is prayed this Hon. Court may be pleased to quash the letter dated 26.12.2024 Annexure R/6. (ii) That any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions thought just and proper may also be issued.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Librarian with the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (in short “IGKVV”) vide order dated 18.02.1994. The petitioner is qualified and having the degree of B.Lib., M.Lib., and Ph.D. in Library Science. Vide order dated 21.04.2003, he was given the benefit of senior pay-scale of Assistant Librarian and vide order dated 21.05.2009, he was given pay-scale of Deputy Librarian and vide order dated 27.03.2017, he was promoted as University Librarian. It is the claim of the petitioner that, the University Grant Commission (in short “UGC”), way back in the year 1990 declared the Librarian and Sports Officer are teaching cadre. The IGKVV is also governed by UGC, and therefore, the post of Librarian is also a teaching cadre. Based on the declaration of UGC, the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide its order dated 16.10.1990 also declared the post of Librarian is a teaching cadre and they are also entitled for same pay- scale of Assistant Professor. The UGC has further declared on 08.06.1998 that, the Librarians should be treated as Academic and Non-vocational Staff. As per the UGC recommendations, the Librarians were getting the same pay-scale with that of the Assistant Professors and they kept at par with the Assistant Professors for upgradation and promotions in their services. The channel of 3 promotion are also same with the Assistant Professor treating the Librarians as the teaching cadre. The respondent/University running courses of Library and Information Science along with other courses including the post graduate courses. The petitioner has been duly assigned as Course Teacher of PGS 501 and engaged in Teaching Master and Ph.D. degree programme. The petitioner is engaged in teaching work as classroom teacher and is entitled to be superannuated at the age of 65 years. The petitioner was participated as Expert Member in various selection committees called by various universities and selection board. The respondent/ University is extending the same pay-scale to the Librarian and Assistant Professor. Regulation 5 of the University Regulations would also shows that Assistant Librarians are also a teaching cadre post and schedule-III of the University Regulations, 2009 is also placed the Librarian as equivalent post of Assistant Professor. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the respondent/University, in compliance of the order passed by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (in short “ICAR”) has issued a notification on 18.03.2025 that, all the teaching and equivalent posts recruited before 17.08.2010 will be treated as teachers in view of Regulation 31 of the University Regulations and their retirement age will be 65 years. Despite notification dated 18.03.2025, the petitioner is retired on 31.08.2025 at the age of 62 years. Since, the Librarians are a teaching cadre post, and therefore, they are also entitled to be retired at the age of 65 years, therefore, he filed the writ petition. 4 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is presently working as Librarian with the University. The post of Librarian is a teaching cadre post and the petitioner teaches UG, PG and Ph.D students and is assigned to the course of PGS 501. As per the UGC Regulations, 2009, the respondent/University also recognizes the Librarians as the teaching cadre posts and the retirement age of the employees of teaching cadre posts is 65 years, yet the petitioner is retired at the age of 62 years. He would further submit that, Schedule-III of Regulation No. 46 of the Regulations, 2009, the respondent/University made applicable the provisions of act and institute to Assistant Professors, Librarians, Physical Training Instructors and subject matter specialists, placing Librarians at par with the teachers. The petitioner engaged in teaching the Library and Information Science to PG and Ph.D students since 1994. It is also submitted that, on 18.03.2025, the university issued a notification indicating that teachers and employees in equivalent posts are treated with the same cadre and are entitled to same pay-scale according to Regulation 31 of the university with their retirement age of 65 years. Since, the petitioner is also in a teaching cadre post, his retirement age should be 65 years, however, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2024, he is retired on 31.08.2025 after reaching the superannuation age of 62 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment passed by Madras High Court (Madurai bench), order dated 11.02.2020, in WP(MD) No. 2390 of 2019 (Dr. G. Thamaraiselvi v. 5 The Secretary to Government, Union of India and others) and order dated 13.12.2023, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4267 of 2011 (P.C. Modi v. The Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwavidyalaya and another). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ University apart from the return, denied the claim of the petitioner and would submit that, the post of Librarian in the university is a direct recruitment post and the petitioner was promoted to the post of University Librarian vide order dated 27.03.2017 under the Career Advancement Scheme. The superannuation age of teachers was increased from 62 years to 65 years by the order dated 25.08.2012 by invoking the provisions of Sections 9(4) of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute. The said enhancement of the retirement age is applicable to the employees of teaching cadre, who are engaged in classroom teaching and not otherwise. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Librarian and not as a Teacher. He would further submit that the representation of the petitioner to consider him as a Teacher, has been rejected by the respondent/ University on 26.12.2024, in which, it has been clearly stated that the benefit of superannuation age of 65 years is available only to those teachers, who are engaged in classroom teaching, even if, they are treated in teaching cadre posts, therefore, the benefit of the Notification, dated 18.03.2025 cannot be extended to the petitioner and his retirement age cannot be considered to be of 65 years. He would rely upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of 6 this Court dated 14.07.2025, in WPS No. 505 of 2024 and other batch of petitions and submits that the enhanced age of superannuation is applicable only to classroom teachers. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. It is undisputed that, the petitioner is a Librarian and is an employee of IGKVV. The UGC has formulated the Regulations under Section 26 of the University Grant Commission Act of 1956 (in short “Act of 1956”), which were notified from time to time. Section 2(f) of the Act of 1956 defines “university”, which reads as under:- “(f) “university” means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.” 8. The universities are being recognized by the UGC in accordance with the Regulations made under the Act of 1956. The age of superannuation of classroom teachers of the Central Educational Institutions was enhanced to 65 years vide order dated 23.03.2007 to attract eligible persons to teaching career and to retain teachers in service for longer period. Under the Appendix (1) to the Regulations, 2010, benefit of enhancement of age if superannuation has not been made available to the Librarians and Directors of Physical Education and their age of superannuation has been remained as 62 years 7 under clause 8(f). The “classroom teaching” has been explained in the explanation of Sub-rule 2(1-e) of Rule 56 of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules. 9. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Hemlal Sahu v. Union of India and others” decided on 19.05.2021, in WPS No. 5218 of 2016 and considered the issue of benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years and in para 25 to 30 held that:- “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 & 8 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). 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 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 9 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. 28. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chiranjeet Lal Choudhary vs. UOI reported in AIR 1951 SC 41 has observed that if there is classification, the Courts will not held it invalid merely because the law might have been extended to other persons who in some respect might resemble the class for which the law was made for. The Legislature is the best Judge of the need of particular class to estimate the degree of anvil so as to adjust its legislation accordingly to the exigencies found to exist. 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 10 challenge to get a declaration that amended provision under the Act of 1967 amounts to hostile discrimination and unreasonable classification. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.” 10. The respondent/University has not treated the petitioner as a classroom teacher, though his post of Librarian is at par with the teaching cadre post. From the order dated 26.12.2024, the university has already declared that the petitioner is not a classroom teacher and is not entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation up to 65 years. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Librarian on 18.02.1994, which was a non-teaching post. As per Regulation 9(4) of the IGKVV University Regulations, 1987, the Assistant Librarian is a non-teaching post and the enhancement of the superannuation age from 62 to 65 years applicable for the employees, who are the classroom teachers and who holds lien on substantive posts against said posts only. 11. The Regulation 9(4) of the IGKVV University Regulations, 1987 was amended on 25.08.2012 with respect to the enhancement of the superannuation age from 62 to 65 years of the teachers of the university, which came into effect from 01.04.2012, in which it has been provided that the teachers of the university, who are engaged only in classroom teaching work and who is not holding non-teaching or administrative post, shall retire on the superannuation age of 65 years. The relevant amendment in Regulation 9(4) is reproduced hereinbelow:- 11 “छ.ग. श㘾सकᕀय स वकᕀ (अध✿वቧ枌कᕀ आय) सश㘾न अध✿ቧ枌नयम 2012 कᕀ ቧ枌न⡍द♁ Øमकᕀ 2 म (द♁) कᕀ अतगत ቚ媋वन अनसर ቧ枌द♁नकᕀ 01.04.2012 स ቧ枌वश㙍वቧ枌वቕ喋लय कᕀ ऐस अध❍यपकᕀ ज᱋ कᕀ वल कᕍलस रあम (कᕀቌ䲋) ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋ण कᕀय म लग ह㥋 तथ┾ ज᱋ ग,र-ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋कᕀय अथ┾व ቚ媋श㘾सकᕀय पद♁ कᕀ /kkर〿रत म कᕀर रह㥋 ह㥋, उस मह㥋 कᕀ ध✿ज᱋सम ቧ枌कᕀ वह㥋 प,सठ व कᕀ आय ቚ媋्䵎 कᕀर ल , अቧ枌तम ቧ枌द♁न कᕀ अपरन⡍ह㥋 म स वቧ枌नव1्䵈 ह㥋 ज᱋य ग। परन⡍त ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋कᕀ सवग कᕀ ऐस सद♁स㡍य ज᱋ श㘾,ቌ䲋ቧ枌णकᕀ पद♁ पर रणध✿कᕀर रखत ह㥋 तथ┾ ज᱋ ቚ媋श㘾सकᕀय पद♁ कᕀ /kkर〿रत कᕀर रह㥋 ह㥋,, यቧ枌द♁ प,सठ व कᕀ आय तकᕀ स व कᕀरन चᨾह㥋त ह㥋, त उस ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋कᕀय पद♁ पर ቧ枌नयቧ枌7 ह㥋 त ቧ枌वकᕀल㉍प द♁ न ह㥋ग। परन⡍त यह㥋 और ቧ枌कᕀ ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋कᕀ सवग कᕀ ऐस सद♁स㡍य ज᱋ इस उप-ቧ枌नयम कᕀ अतगत स वቧ枌नव1्䵈 ह㥋त ह㥋,. ध✿ज᱋सकᕀ ज᱋Ueध✿्䵈ध✿थ┾ ቧ枌कᕀस; ekस कᕀ पह㥋ल; तर;ख ह㥋, प<ववत; मस कᕀ अቧ枌तम ቧ枌द♁न कᕀ अपरन⡍ह㥋 म प=सठ व कᕀ आय ቚ媋्䵎 कᕀर ल न पर, स वቧ枌नव1्䵈 ह㥋 ज᱋य ग।” 12. The State Government vide its circular dated 28.04.2012, issued by the Department of Finance and Planning has also clarified that the enhancement of the retirement age from 62 to 65 years under the Chhattisgarh Shashkiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2012 would not be applicable, who are not engaged in classroom teaching, even though their posts are teaching cadre posts. The relevant part of the circular dated 28.04.2012 is reproduced herein below:- “2. यह㥋 उቤ撔 खन;य ह㥋, ቧ枌कᕀ अध✿वቧ枌कᕀ आय म कᕀ गई व1ቧ枌A कᕀ वल कᕍलस रあम ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋ण म लग ह㥋Bए ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋कᕀD कᕀ ध✿लए लग< ह㥋ग;, यह㥋 व1ቧ枌A ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋कᕀD कᕀ समकᕀቌ䲋 सवग कᕀ ध✿लए लग< नह㥋E ह㥋ग;। उद♁ह㥋रणथ┾ अध✿वቧ枌कᕀ आय म कᕀ गई व1ቧ枌A लइቜ岔 र; सईस और श㘾र;र〿रकᕀ ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋 ik्䵏्䵅मD कᕀ कᕍलस रあम ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋कᕀD कᕀ उपलबⱍ ह㥋ग; ቧ枌कᕀन⡍त वuद♁ श㘾कᕀ, श㘾र;र〿रकᕀ ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋, लइቜ岔 र〿रयन इत⑍यቧ枌द♁ पद♁D पर कᕀयरत व㕍यቧ枌7यD कᕀ उपलबⱍ नह㥋E ह㥋ग;, भल ह㥋; ऐस पद♁D कᕀ ቧ枌श㘾ቌ䲋कᕀD कᕀ समकᕀቌ䲋 मन गय ह㥋,।” 13. In case of “Kewal Singh Vs. Lajwanti” 1980 (1) SCC 290 Hon’ble Supreme Court while applying Article 14 of the Constitution of India 12 to the provisions under challenge has made following observations;- “9. Lastly, we come to the question of the application of Article 14 to the provisions of the Act. This is undoubtedly a question which merits serious consideration. Before approaching this question we might observe that it is well settled that what Article 14 forbids is hostile discrimination and not reasonable classification. Discrimination may take place in many ways, and what Article 14 requires is that equals must be treated alike. If equals and unequals are also treated alike then also Artcile 14 is clearly attracted and discrimination results. A reasonable classification based on grounds having a clear nexus with the objective to be achieved and grouping certain persons in a separate category in view of their special peculiarities is undoubtedly permissible. Of course, classification should not be purely a class legislation. It is also well settled that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and any party who seeks to challenge the legislation on the ground of applicability of Article 14 must plead and prove the necessary facts. In making a classification the court must presume matters of common knowledge, common report, history of the time and every other relevant fact.” 14. In case of “Dipak Sibal vs. Punjab University” (1989) 2 SCC 145 Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the grounds raised challenging the Statute, has held thus;- “9. It is now well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable classification. Whether a classification is a permissible classification under Article 14 or not, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped 13 together from others left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. 20. In considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constitution, the court has also to consider the objective for such classification. If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. In the instant case, the foregoing discussion reveals that the classification of the employees of government/semi-government institutions etc. by the impugned rule for the purpose of admission in the evening classes of three year LLB degree course to the exclusion of all other employees, is unreasonable and unjust, as it does not subserve any fair and logical objective. It is, however, submitted that classification in favour of Government and public sector is a reasonable and valid classification. In support of that contention, the decision in Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. v. Government of Kerala4, has been relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents. In that case, it has been observed that as far as government undertakings and companies are concerned, it has to be held that they form a class by themselves, since any project that they may make would in the end result in the benefit to the members of the general public……..” 15. In case of “State of AP v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi” (2001) 7 SCC 708 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the test of permissible classification and held that classification to be in two folds; (i) whether classification is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others who are excluded from the group and; (ii) whether differentia has rational connection with the object sought to be achieved. Hon’ble Supreme 14 Court has held thus:- “8. What Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits is “class legislation” and not “classification for purpose of legislation”. If the legislature reasonably classifies persons for legislative purposes so as to bring them under a well-defined class, it is not open to challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment that the law does not apply to other persons. The test of permissible classification is twofold: (i) that the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and (ii) that differentia must have a rational connection to the object sought to be achieved. Article 14 does not insist upon classification, which is scientifically perfect or logically complete. A classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. If there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment. In substance, the differentia required is that it must be real and substantial, bearing some just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation.” 16. In case of “AP Dairy Development Corporation vs. B. Narsimha Reddy” (2011) 9 SCC 286, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the challenge made to Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2006 on the ground of classification and hostile discrimination has observed as under:- “18. It is well-settled law that Article 14 forbids class legislation, however, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Therefore, it is permissible in law to have class legislation 15 provided the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. Law also permits a classification even if it relates to a single individual, if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him, and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself. It should be presumed that the legislature has correctly appreciated the need of its people and that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. There is further presumption in favour of the legislature that legislation had been brought with the knowledge of existing conditions. The good faith on the legislature is to be presumed, but if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation. The law should not be irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as there must be nexus to the object sought to be achieved by it. (Vide Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar2 and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar3.)” 17. In case of “Ramkrishna Grover vs. UOI” (2020) 12 SCC 506 Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with constitutional validity of Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 and its extension to the Union Territory Chandigarh, has considered whether it is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory or creates 16 artificial classification, has held thus:- “41. Legislature’s primary function is to make laws for all or different groups or classes of persons. The lawmakers as elected representatives are in a better position than any other body which is removed from local and other circumstances, to know the needs, requirements and expectations of citizens. It, therefore, seems only logical that the legislature possesses the power to distinguish and classify persons or things subjected to such laws. Such a classification, however, must pass the muster of Article 14 which proscribes hostile and invidious discrimination. Recognising that Article 14 does not entirely prohibit classification by grouping certain persons with special peculiarities in a special category to meet certain specific ends, this Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar24 had postulated two conditions which must be satisfied for a classification to withstand a challenge under Article 14, namely: (i) the classification should be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation or nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi25, this Court had further elucidated that a challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment will not sustain when the legislature intends to classify persons under a well-defined class. A classification need not be scientifically perfect or logically complete and would be justified unless it is palpably arbitrary. The test to judge the validity of any classification has to be practical and pragmatic by looking beyond the classification to the purpose of the law, that is, the purpose or object of the legislation and the circumstances which had prevailed when the law was passed and which had necessitated passing of that law. Not only this, there is a presumption as to constitutional validity of an enactment predicated on 17 the belief that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restriction to only those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest. The hardship that may result from the classification cannot be the basis for determining the validity of any statute. This requires distinguishing between under-inclusiveness and over- inclusiveness. The former classification does not confer the same benefit or place the same burden on others who are similarly situated whereas over- inclusiveness includes not only those who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose but others who are not so situated as well. The latter is frowned upon but the former may pass the judicial test for the courts do exercise tolerance to under- inclusiveness unless it is clear that there is no fair reason for the law which would not require with equal force its extension to those whom it leaves untouched (see Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India26, decided on 9-8-2019). 18. The law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not entirely prohibits classification but classification is permissible if founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons that are grouped together from other left out from the group having nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The purpose of the legislation is to be seen by adopting pragmatic and practical approach and the necessity for incorporating such provision. 19. In view of the aforesaid judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that the enhancement of the superannuation age from 62 to 65 years 18 has been made only for teachers engaged in classroom teaching. The classroom teaching has been explained by way of explanation given in amended provision of Section 2(ii)(1-e) of the Chhattisgarh Shashkiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, which clarifies that the classroom teaching shall mean teaching students in the classroom in a course or programme of studies in a subject leading to award of degree. 20. The duties of a Librarian and Classroom Teacher both stands on different footing and from perusal of the amendment in the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2012 would show that, classroom teachers have been given benefit of increase of age of superannuation. The classroom teachers will teach the students with their experience, which they have gained during their long period of service and shall be beneficial in the interest of students. From the explanation given to classroom teaching, it is apparent that the teachers, who are engaged in teaching a class or programme of study in a subject faculty leading to award of degree. From the nature of duties and responsibilities of Librarian and Classroom Teacher, it is apparent that the petitioner being a Librarian cannot be treated as Classroom Teacher for extending benefit of the enhancement of age of superannuation, though the post of Librarian is a teaching cadre post. 21. In the matter of “Hemlal Sahu” (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held in para 28 that:- 19 “28. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chiranjeet Lal Choudhary vs. UOI reported in AIR 1951 SC 41 has observed that if there is classification, the Courts will not held it invalid merely because the law might have been extended to other persons who in some respect might resemble the class for which the law was made for. The Legislature is the best Judge of the need of particular class to estimate the degree of anvil so as to adjust its legislation accordingly to the exigencies found to exist.” 22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that, the petitioner could not make out his case to hold that the non- granting of the benefit of enhancement of age to the petitioner is discriminatory and unreasonable classification. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved