Registrar, Orissa Uni.Of Agl. And Tec. vs Upendra Nath Patra And Anr. Etc.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4275-4277 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 31165-31167 of 2011)

Registrar, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology & Anr. .... Appellants

Versus

Upendra Nath Patra & Anr. Etc. ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted

1. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by benefits attached to the post of Teacher with effect from SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2018.04.24 16:59:30 IST

16th March, 1979. Shri Binod Chandra Mahanti, Reason:

Respondent No.1 in the Appeal arising out of Special

Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31166 of 2011, filed OJC 1 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.

2

2. 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

1 OJC No.804 of 1981 decided on 20th November, 1984.

3 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.

4

3. 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.

4. 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:

5

“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

6 equivalent to the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer Grade-I or Lecturer Grade-II as the case may be. ”

5. 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.

6. 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

7 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.

7. 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.2). It can be noticed from

2 (2007) 3 SCC 720- para 10

8 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.

8. 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

9 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.

9. In the light of the aforementioned findings, the

Appeals stands disposed of.

.......................................J. [S.A. BOBDE]

........................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi, April 23, 2018

10