The Supreme Court on Monday said that 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. This decision was given by the bench of Hon’ble Justices S.A. BOBDE and L. NAGESWARA RAO in the case of Registrar, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology & Anr. V Upendra Nath Patra & Anr. Etc. [ CIVIL APPEAL Nos .4275-4277 of2018].
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 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 was filed challenging the correctness of the said Judgment of the full Bench.
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.
The Supreme Court in its decision said ” 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.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 was not correct.”
The Supreme Court further added “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.”
Supreme Court also accepted 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.
Taking note of the fact that the Respondents have retired from service and have been fighting for their rights for nearly 30 years the court in its judgment said “We do not see any reason to prevent the Respondents from getting the benefits of their being treated as Teachers.”