REGISTRAR, ORISSA UNI.OF AGL. AND TEC. vs UPENDRA NATH PATRA AND ANR. ETC.

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted

Original Jurisdiction Case (OJC) No. 2412 of 1985 filed by Shri Upendra Nath Patra, Respondent No.1 in the Appeal arising out of Special Leave

Petition (Civil) No. 31165 of 2011, was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa by a judgment dated 12th November, 1990. The post

of Field Supervisor held by him was declared equivalent to the post of Teacher and he was held entitled to all the Respondent No.1 in the Appeal

arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31166 of 2011, filed OJCÂ No.3390 of 1990 seeking fixation of appropriate scale of pay for the post

of Field Supervisor by treating him as a Teacher. OJC No.3390 of 1990 was dismissed by another Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa by its

judgment dated 25th September, 1992. It was declared that the post of Field Supervisor cannot be considered equivalent to teaching post. Civil Review

No.102 of 1993 filed by the Appellant against a judgment in OJC No.2412 of 1985 and Civil Review No.106 of 1992 filed by Shri Binod Chandra

Mahanti against the judgment in OJC No.3390 of 1990 were taken up together and were referred to a larger Bench in view of the divergent views in

the above-mentioned judgments. By a judgment dated 25 th February, 2011 a Full Bench of the Orissa High Court upheld the judgment dated 12th

November, 1990 in OJC No.2412 of 1985 and overruled the judgment dated 25th September, 1992 in OJC No.3390 of 1990. This Appeal is filed

challenging the correctness of the said Judgment of the full Bench.

Shri Upendra Nath Patra was appointed as a Field Supervisor in the Appellant- University on 10 th February, 1972. Shri Binod Chandra Mahanti

was appointed as a Statistical Assistant on 11 th December, 1979. He was later transferred and adjusted against a post of Field Supervisor. OJC

No.2412 of 1985, filed by Shri Upendra Nath Patra for a declaration that a post of Field Supervisor should be treated as a post of Teacher was

allowed by the High Court by relying upon an earlier judgment of the High Court in Rajendra Prasad Mishra & Ors. v. Orissa University of

Agriculture and Technology & Anr.1 In Rajendra Prasad Mishra (supra), the High Court held that the post of Senior Research Assistant should be

treated as a post of Teacher falling under category II of Statute 19 (1) of the Statutes of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, 1966

(for short ‘the Statutes’). The High Court relied upon a letter dated 26th March, 1981 of the University, made in the absence of a declaration by

the Statutes. In the said letter dated 26 th March, 1981, the University informed the Government that the posts of Senior Metrological Assistant, Block

Agent, Senior Technical  Assistant and Field Supervisor should be treated as Teachers provided the incumbents were post-graduates. In its

judgment in OJC No.2412 of 1985, the Division Bench also took note of an Office Order dated 16 th March, 1979 of the Registrar of the University

by which the post of Field Supervisor was declared as Teacher under Section 19(1) of the Statutes framed under the Orissa University of Agriculture

and Technology Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’). The Appellant’s contention that the declaration of the post of Field Supervisor as Teacher

under Statute 19(1) of the Statutes was only for the limited purpose of inclusion in the electoral roll in connection with the election to the post of

Member from the Teachers Constituency to the Board of Management was rejected. The High Court repelled the contention that the Registrar of the

University had no jurisdiction to pass an Order of equivalence and it is only the Board of Management which had the competence to do so. The High

Court held that the proceeding dated 16 th March, 1979 has neither been superseded nor cancelled. The High Court concluded that a Field Supervisor

cannot be declared as equivalent to a Teacher for a limited purpose.

A different view was taken by another Division Bench of the High Court in OJC No.3390 of 1990 filed by Shri Binod Chandra Mahanti. It was held

that the Academic Council did not approve the extension of the UGC benefits to the Field Supervisors on the ground that they did not possess requisite

qualification of M.Sc. (Agriculture) and that the said post was not a Teaching post. The said Resolution of the Academic Council was accepted by the

Board of Management. The Division Bench observed that there is no manner of doubt that the Field Supervisor cannot be a Teaching post. The

proceeding dated 26th March, 1979 of Registrar of the University by which the Field Supervisors were treated as Teachers for the purpose of

Elections was referred to by the Division Bench to hold that the Registrar of the University had no jurisdiction or authority to issue the said Order.

While resolving the dispute in view of the divergence of opinion of two Division Benches, the full Bench examined the provisions of the Orissa

University of Agriculture and Technology Act, 1965. It is relevant to reproduce Section 2 (10) of the Act and Statute 19 of the Act which are as

follows:

“Section 2(10):- ‘Teacher’ means a person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting

and guiding research or extension educational programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the Statute to be a teacher. †“

Classification of Teachers Statute 19(1):- The teachers of the University shall be classified into three categories as follows;

Category-I : Persons appointed for the purpose of imparting education.

Category-II: Persons appointed for the purpose of conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes, and Category-III: Persons

declared by the Statutes as teachers.

(2) The posts held by the teachers belonging to Category-1 shall be designated as follows:-

(a) Professor

(b) Reader

(c) Lecturer Grade-I

(d) Lecturer Grade-II

(e) any other post which the University may from time to time include by notification.

(3) The posts held by the teacher belonging to Category-II and Category-III may be declared by the University with the prior approval of the Board

as equivalent to the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer Grade-I or Lecturer Grade-II as the case may be. â€​

According to the full Bench, there was no need for declaration of officers who have been doing field work, as Teachers. The full Bench held that

Statute 19(3) of the Statutes is not applicable to such persons falling in Category II. Conducting or guiding research is part of education according to

the full Bench and Field Supervisors who were imparting education, need not be declared as Teachers. The judgment in Upendra Nath Patra’s

case (supra) was upheld and the subsequent judgment by another Division Bench in Binod Chandra Mahanti was overruled by the full Bench.

We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the interpretation of Statute 19 of the Statutes of the full Bench of the High Court. The Teachers of

the University are classified into three categories; (i) those appointed for imparting education, (ii) those appointed for the purpose of conducting or

guiding the research or extension educational programmes, and (iii) persons declared by the Statutes as Teachers. Statute 19(3) provides that the posts

held by the Teachers belonging to Category II or III may be declared by the University with the prior approval of the Board as equivalent to the

teaching posts. A plain reading of Statute 19 would show that Field Supervisors who fall in Category II claiming to be Teachers have to be declared

by the University as Teachers. The finding recorded by the full Bench that Statute 19(3) does not apply to persons falling in Category II is not correct.

Interpreting Category III of Statute 19(1) to be the only category where there is requirement of declaration by the Statutes as Teachers, the full

Bench lost sight of the scope of Statute 19(3) wherein a provision pertaining to a declaration in respect of persons falling in Category II and Category

III as Teachers is clearly mentioned. We are of the opinion that a post of Field Supervisor can be treated as a Teacher only after a declaration by the

University with the prior approval of the Board and not otherwise.

It is well settled that the relief to be granted in a case is not a natural consequence of the ratio of the judgment (Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public

Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720). It can be noticed from the narration above, the proceeding dated 16 th March, 1979 of

Registrar of the University declaring the post of Field Supervisor as Teacher for the purpose of Elections has neither been withdrawn nor rescinded till

date. The recommendation made by the Registrar of the University on 26th March, 1981 to the Government to treat the Field Supervisor as Teachers

still holds good. We are in agreement with the judgment in Upendra Nath Patra’s case (supra) on this point. It is not open to the University to

contend that no reliance can be placed by the Respondents on the proceeding dated 16th March, 1979 of Registrar of the University as it was issued

by the Registrar who was not competent to issue such orders. We also accept the logic of the Division Bench of the High Court in Upendra Nath

Partra’s case (supra) that the declaration of a Teacher for one purpose will hold good for the others too.

We are informed that the Respondents have retired from service and have been fighting for their rights for nearly 30 years. We do not see any

reason to prevent the Respondents from getting the benefits of their being treated as Teachers. We make it clear that this would not deter the

University from withdrawing the proceeding dated 16th March, 1979 of Registrar of the University by which Field Supervisors were declared as

Teachers. Such withdrawal, if resorted to, will not affect the entitlement of the Respondents in this Appeal to get all consequential benefits of their

being treated as Teachers.

In the light of the aforementioned findings, the Appeals stands disposed of.