Non-Reportable  

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

J U D G M E N T

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

benefits attached to the post of Teacher with effect from

16th March,  1979.   Shri  Binod  Chandra  Mahanti,

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 25th 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  10th February,

1972.   Shri  Binod  Chandra  Mahanti  was  appointed  as  a

Statistical Assistant on 11th 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 26th 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 16th 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  16th

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 16th 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