Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 121 (ORI)

Binod Chandra Mahanty v. State of Orissa

2011-02-25

I.MAHANTY, PRADIP MOHANTY, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2011
JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. — These two review petitions are referred to the Full Bench vide order dated 21.6.2007 passed by this Court as they being one and the same for the reasons recorded by the Division Bench at paragraph-4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 in the aforesaid order. In the said order it is stated that one Upendra Nath Patra, opposite party no.1 in Civil Review No.102 of 1993 was the petitioner in OJC No.2412 of 1985 who was working as Field Supervisor was aggrieved by the action of the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology (hereinafter called as “the OUAT”) in not treating him as Teacher and not extending him the benefits of U.G.C. Scales of Pay and other benefits as were enjoyed by the Teachers and Senior Research Assistants in the University. The Division Bench of this Court comprising of Justice R.C. Patnaik and Justice A. Pasayat (as their Lordships then were) disposed of the said OJC No. 2412 of 1985 by judgment dated 12th November, 1990 referring to an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mishra and others v. OUAT and another (OJC No.804 of 1981 decided on 20th November, 1984) by adopting the reasons given in that judgment, the said Division Bench declared the post of Field Supervisor as a Teacher and held that the petitioner in that case was entitled to consequential benefits. The relevant paragraph-4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 of the said order dated 21.6.2007 are reproduced hereunder:- “Para-4:- Upendra Nath Patra, opposite party no.1 in Civil Review No.102 of 1993, who was the petitioner in OJC No. 2412 of 1985 and was working as a Field Supervisor was aggrieved by the action of the OUAT in not treating him as a Teacher and extending U.G.C. scale of pay and other benefits enjoyed by the Teachers and Senior Research Assistants. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of Justice R.C. Patnaik and Justice A. Pasayat disposed of the writ application by judgment dated 12th November, 1990. Referring to an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mishra and others v. OUAT and another (OJC No.804 of 1981 decided on 20th November, 1990. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of Justice R.C. Patnaik and Justice A. Pasayat disposed of the writ application by judgment dated 12th November, 1990. Referring to an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mishra and others v. OUAT and another (OJC No.804 of 1981 decided on 20th November, 1990. Referring to an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Misra and others v. OUAT and another (OJC No.804 of 1981 decided on 20th November, 1984) and adopting the reasoning given in that judgment, the said Division Bench declared the post of Field Supervisor as a Teacher and held that the petitioner in that case was entitled to consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, OUAT filed Civil Review No.26 of 1991. The said Civil Review was dismissed on 13th September, 1991. Challenging the order dismissing the Civil Review, OUAT approached the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13698 of 1992. Para-5:- In the year 1980, one Artatrana Das who was working as a Block Agent claiming that his post was equivalent to that of Field Supervisor approached this Court in OJC No.1033 of 1980 for declaring him as a Teacher and to grant benefits of the post of Teacher. While matters stood thus Dr. Binod Ch. Mohanty, petitioner in Civil Review No.106 of 1992, who was working as a Field Supervisor filed OJC No.3390 claiming identical reliefs. Para-7:- OJC No.3390 of 1990 however came up for hearing before another Division Bench consisting of Justice A. Pasayat and Justice S.K. Mohanty. Judgment of the said case was pronounced on 25th September, 1992 and the writ application was dismissed on the ground that the ratio decided in the case of Upendra Nath Patra was not acceptable since the post of Field Supervisor could not be said to be equivalent to that of a Teacher. Para-8:- It is further submitted that OUAT filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of this Court in Artatrana Das case which was registered as SLP (Civil) No.2679 of 1993. Para-8:- It is further submitted that OUAT filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of this Court in Artatrana Das case which was registered as SLP (Civil) No.2679 of 1993. It appears that the said SLP was dismissed on 27th August, 1993; whereas in the SLP filed by OUAT against the judgment passed in the case of Upendra Nath Patra being SLP No.13698 (Civil) of 1992 it was submitted on behalf of OUAT that the High Court having subsequently passed a judgment contrary to the judgment passed in Atratrana case liberty may be granted to move the High Court. Accordingly the SLP was disposed of granting liberty to the OUAT to prefer a Review Petition before this Court. OUAT has therefore preferred Civil Review No.102 of 1993 with a prayer to review the judgment passed in the case of Upendra Nath Patra, i.e. OJC No.2412 of 1985. At the same time, the petitioner in OJC No.3390 of 1990 has preferred Civil Review No.106 of 1992 with a prayer to review the judgment, in light of the ratio decided in the case of Artatrana (OJC No.1033 of 1980) and Rajendra Prasad Mishra (OJC No.804 of 1981). Para-11:- In the case of Upendra Nath Patra, OJC No.2412 of 1985, the Bench consisting of Justice R.C. Patnaik and Justice A. Pasayat held that the post of Field supervisor was a post of Teacher. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Artatrana Das (OJC No.1033 of 1980) who was a Block Agent, by another Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice B.L. Hansaria and Justice R.K. Patra; whereas in the case of petitioner Dr. Binod Ch. Mohanty, a Division Bench consisting of Justice A. Pasayat and Justice S.K. Mohanty arrived at a different conclusion that a Field Supervisor did not possess the requisite qualification and the said post was not a teaching post. Thus there is inconsistency in the two judgments of coordinate Benches. That apart, it appears that the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Artatrana Das (OJC No.1033 of 1980) taking a view different from that in OJC No. 3390 of 1990, was assailed before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.2679 of 1993 and the said SLP was dismissed. That apart, it appears that the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Artatrana Das (OJC No.1033 of 1980) taking a view different from that in OJC No. 3390 of 1990, was assailed before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.2679 of 1993 and the said SLP was dismissed. In the aforesaid scenario, this Court feels that to avoid further inconsistency and to maintain judicial propriety, it would be just and proper that the present Civil Reviews be decided by a larger Bench to avoid divergent decisions as to whether the “Field Supervisors” or persons holding similar post under OUAT are to be treated as “Teachers” for the purpose of various benefits and in the matter of pay etc. Accordingly we direct that the two Civil Reviews be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench.” 2.The grounds of review in Civil Review No.102 of 1993 are that the Academic Council’s Resolution dated 30.1.1980 and the resolution dated 28.2.1980 of the Board of Management not declaring the Field Supervisor as Teacher having not been challenged by the petitioners the said resolutions of the Academic Council and the Board of Management have become final and binding. Further, the office order dated 16.3.1979 (Annexure-A series) issued by the Registrar, OUAT is without jurisdiction, and as such it is not valid in law. The consequence will follow, as there can be no estoppel against the statute. 3.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OUAT placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta v. B.N. Bhattacharjee and another, AIR 1979 SC 1725 at paragraphs-55 and 56. It is contended that the error is apparent in Upendra Nath Patra’s case, as this Court did not consider Section 17 of the Act and Statute 19 of the OUAT Statute. This Court in the said case without evaluating the validity/authority of the Registrar and the office order dated 16.3.1979 went to maintain parity, which consequently has become contrary to the statutory provisions of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Statutes of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (for short, ‘the Statutes’). It is contended that the Board alone has the power to approve a teaching post under Category II and Category III of Statute 19(1) of the Statutes read with Section 2(1) of the Act. It is contended that the Board alone has the power to approve a teaching post under Category II and Category III of Statute 19(1) of the Statutes read with Section 2(1) of the Act. The job chart of the Field Supervisor would demonstrate that it does not qualify the Category II specification of Statute 19(1). Section 2(10) of the Act read with Statute 19(1) of the Statutes would demonstrate that unless a post is declared by the Board to be a teacher, the same cannot be treated as teacher. The declaration by the Board of Management is mandatory. Section 2(10) of the Act reads as under: “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.” 4.It is contended by the learned counsel that the word “recognition” signifies formal acknowledgement conveying approval or sanction of the University as held by the Supreme Court. The word recognition fell for consideration before the Apex Court in T.V.V. Narasimham and others v. State of Orissa, AIR 1963 SC 1227 , wherein it was held that a formal admission to show that a person, entity or part has a particular status. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that it is imperative that there are broadly two classes; one that are appointed as teachers, and the other is those who are recognized/approved/acknowledged as teachers. Admittedly, the Field Supervisors are not appointed as teachers. They have to be recognized as Teachers being approved by the Board of Management. Therefore, approval/declaration becomes implied once they are not “appointed” as teachers. As such, Field Supervisors to be “Teachers” have to be recognized by the University. In the instant case, the University having considered whether the Field Supervisors are Teachers or not has come to a definite conclusion that they are not Teachers and there is no scope for this Court to interfere in this regard. 5.Further, it is contended that the submission made on behalf of the writ petition in Upendra Nath Patra’s case that in Category II of Statute 19, no declaration is required, is not correct. 5.Further, it is contended that the submission made on behalf of the writ petition in Upendra Nath Patra’s case that in Category II of Statute 19, no declaration is required, is not correct. Sub-Statute (3) to Statute 19 implies such an approval or declaration, which reads thus: “The posts held by the teachers belonging to category-III may be declared by the University with the prior approval of the Board are equivalent to the posts of Professor, Assoc. Professor, Asst. Professor as the case may be.” Further, the job chart of the Field Supervisors is as follows: “i)The Field Supervisor will spend at least two days in each village/cluster at the commencement of the investigation to acquaint himself with the farmers and their farming conditions. ii)Subsequently, the supervisor will visit each village/cluster at least once every month and spend at least one full day there. iii)In order to have an effective supervision and to reduce cost of travel and save the travel time, the Field Supervisor will invariably be stationed at some central point among his centres allotted. iv)In each visit to the village/cluster, the Field Supervisor will undertake the following scrutiny. a)Spot-checking of the entries of 4-5 farmers, b)Random verification of some entries made during the period prior to his current visit. c)A quick check of the filled in schedules for completeness, and d)A through probe into the reason for the out lying entries, corrections or errors, commissions, etc. found in the schedule received in the month.” 6.Further, it is contended that the entire funding of the Scheme is done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The State Government proposed the OUAT to be the administrator in the implementation of the Comprehensive Scheme. The OUAT appointed an administrator for implementation of the Comprehensive Scheme. The pay scales were made equivalent to the local pay scales to the staff under the Comprehensive Scheme. 7.Further, it is contended that though the pay scale of the Filed Officer is equivalent to that of an Asst. Professor of the OUAT that does not imply that the Field Officer comes under the definition of “Teacher” as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act read with Statute 19. Therefore, the equivalence in pay scale does not ipso facto imply the recognition as “Teacher”. Professor of the OUAT that does not imply that the Field Officer comes under the definition of “Teacher” as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act read with Statute 19. Therefore, the equivalence in pay scale does not ipso facto imply the recognition as “Teacher”. A bare perusal of the objective of the Comprehensive Scheme as well as the job profile of Field Supervisor would indicate that he does not have remote connection with “Guiding research” or “conducting research”. As such, Field Supervisor under the Comprehensive Scheme does not come under the definition of “Teacher” as provided under Section 2(10) of the Act and the necessary fall out would be that they are not “Teacher”. Therefore, the order sought to be reviewed is required to be reviewed. 8.Further, it is contended that the review has been filed by the OUAT on the basis of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is not the second review. Even assuming that it is second review, the same is maintainable in view of non-application of the Doctrine of Merger. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance in Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 . Learned counsel for the OUAT submitted that Civil Review No.102 of 1993 filed by the OUAT has to be allowed and Civil Review No.106 of 1992 filed by Dr. Binod Chandra Mahanty be dismissed, as the reasons recorded by the High Court while dismissing OJC No.3390 of 1990 are legal and valid. 9.The petitioner in Civil Review 106 of 1992 has placed reliance upon the decision in Upendra Nath Patra v. State of Orissa and others, i.e., OJC No.2412 of 1985 disposed of on 12.11.1990. It is submitted that in the said case, this Court after considering the provisions of the Statute and the decision of the Board of Management categorically held that the post of Field Supervisor is one like the post of Senior Research Assistant. Accordingly, this Court declared that the post of Field Supervisor is a post of ‘Teacher’ coming within the purview of Statute 19(1) and held that the post of Field Supervisor is a post of ‘Teacher’ under Category-II of Statute 19(1) like the post of Senior Research Assistant. Therefore, the said judgment is in rem is binding on all concerned. Accordingly, this Court declared that the post of Field Supervisor is a post of ‘Teacher’ coming within the purview of Statute 19(1) and held that the post of Field Supervisor is a post of ‘Teacher’ under Category-II of Statute 19(1) like the post of Senior Research Assistant. Therefore, the said judgment is in rem is binding on all concerned. The aforesaid declaration of this Court has not been reversed/set aside or modified by the Supreme Court. Again, in OJC No.1033 of 1980 in Artatrana Das v. University of Agriculture and others, the question relating to interpretation of Statute 19(2) of the Statute of the OUAT fell for consideration before this Court, wherein this Court held that the petitioner in the said case who was appointed as Block Agent under the OUAT was a ‘Teacher’ as defined in Section 2(10) of the Act. Therefore, no declaration in his case was necessary by the Board to put him in the category of ‘Teacher’. Accordingly, this Court held that the petitioner in that case was entitled to draw his salary under the revised U.G.C. Scales of Pay and as such the principle decided in OJC No.1033 of 1980 by this Court fully covers the case of the present petitioner. 10.The further case of the petitioner is that the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has indicated in its letter (produced under Annexure-16 to the writ petition) that Field Supervisor, Field Officer and Asst. Statisticians are holding the same scale of pay in many of the states following the implementation of U.G.C. Scale of Pay. Admittedly, the Assistant Statistician who is an M.Sc. in Statistics was initially appointed as Statistical Asst. like the petitioner and now is drawing U.G.C. Scales Pay under the same Comprehensive Scheme. One Sri P.C. Patjosi now working as Senior Research Assistant who is M.Sc. in Statistics like the petitioner is getting the U.G.C. Scales of Pay even though his appointment is not under the Comprehensive Scheme. But, the petitioner who was initially appointed as Statistical Assistant and thereafter continued as Statistical Analyst is deprived of getting the U.G.C. Scales of Pay and the University is treating him differently. Therefore, there is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But, the petitioner who was initially appointed as Statistical Assistant and thereafter continued as Statistical Analyst is deprived of getting the U.G.C. Scales of Pay and the University is treating him differently. Therefore, there is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since the post of Statistical Analyst was a supervisory post in the field of Agricultural Research (as per Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and the petitioner was working as Statistical Analyst which was also holding a research post under the same University and the University is well aware about the status of two posts, adjusted the petitioner against the post of Field Supervisor, which being supervisory post of Agricultural Research. The petitioner having been deprived of getting the U.G.C. Scales of Pay had no other alternative than to move this Court in OJC No.3390 of 1990 placing reliance upon the Office Order of the then Registrar wherein the Registrar had put the Field Supervisor at par with Teacher. He had also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court passed in OJC No.2412 of 1985 disposed of on 12.11.1990 as well as the order passed in Civil Review No.26 of 1991 disposed of on 13.9.1991, wherein the University had taken a stand that the Field Supervisor had not been declared as ‘Teachers’ by the Board of Management. This Court placing reliance on the resolutions dated 30.1.1980 and 28.2.1980 of the Academic Council as well as the Board of Management held that the Registrar of the University had no jurisdiction or authority to treat the Field Supervisor as Teacher and further held that unless the Field Supervisor is declared as a Teacher by the University with the prior approval of the Board of Management, the U.G.C. Scales of Pay would not be applicable. This Court further held that the basic qualification for the Field Supervisor is B.Sc. (Ag) with three years field experience or M.Sc. (Ag) in Agricultural Economics while the basic qualification for a teaching post in the University is Master Degree in the concerned subject. This Court further held that the petitioner did not possess the basic qualification for appointment as a Field Supervisor under the University and rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 11.It is further contended by the learned counsel Mr. (Ag) in Agricultural Economics while the basic qualification for a teaching post in the University is Master Degree in the concerned subject. This Court further held that the petitioner did not possess the basic qualification for appointment as a Field Supervisor under the University and rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 11.It is further contended by the learned counsel Mr. N.K. Sahoo that even assuming without admitting that the Registrar of the University had no jurisdiction or authority to treat the post of Field Supervisor as a teaching post and that it has never been declared by the University as a teaching post with the prior approval of the Board of Management as required under Category III of Statute 19 still then the case of the petitioner is covered within Category II, as this Court interpreted Statute 19(1) in the case of Artatrana Das (OJC No.1033 of 1980) that in order to come within the Category II no declaration of the University is necessary. Therefore, this Court committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record in holding that the plea of the petitioner that his right flows from the equalization as indicated by the Registrar is untenable since the Board of Management cannot override the Statute. Even assuming that the Board of Management has taken such a decision that decision being contrary to the Statute, same should not have been the basis for this Court to hold that the post of Field Supervisor is not a teaching post within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 12.The further contention urged by the learned counsel is that the petitioner is having the qualification of Master Degree in Statistics and was awarded Ph.D. in Applied Economics with his thesis in an Agricultural Economics subject. The petitioner has fifteen research publications mostly published in Indian Journal in Agricultural Economics and Indian Journal or Agricultural Marketing. In addition to that, he was representing various conferences in Agricultural Economics/Agricultural Marketing in all India level being sponsored by OUAT. The aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of this Court in shape of notes of argument, which have not been disputed by the University. In addition to that, he was representing various conferences in Agricultural Economics/Agricultural Marketing in all India level being sponsored by OUAT. The aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of this Court in shape of notes of argument, which have not been disputed by the University. Therefore, the finding of this Court that as no qualified person for the post of Field Supervisor was available, qualification was relaxed to accommodate a person having M.A. in Economics with Agricultural Economics as a special paper and that the petitioner did not have any of the prescribed Post Graduate Degrees in any relevant subjects, is an error apparent on the face of the record. The said finding being the basis of refusal for granting U.G.C. Scales of Pay in favour of the petitioner requires to be reviewed. 13.Further, it is urged that the finding of this Court that no teaching or research work was ever assigned to the post of Field Supervisor is an error of fact committed by this Court, which is apparent on the face of the record. In this regard, he placed reliance on Annexure-19 series annexed to the writ petition and contended that it would clearly show the persons who are working as Field Supervisors and are assigned teaching research work in addition to their own field work. It would also show that the Field Supervisors are not only assigned the teaching work in addition to their own field work but also are allowed to conduct the examination and this fact has been denied by the University in their counter. Therefore, the finding recorded in this regard is error on facts, which is apparent on the face of record and such finding requires review. 14.It is further urged that another important fact of the case is that the Board of Management in its resolution dated 29.11.1977 resolved that the persons working in the Research and Extension Division of the University in the equivalent rank of Lecturer Grade II and above be taken as Teacher as per Section 2(10) of the Act and as per order No.4100 dated 16.3.1979 issued by the then Registrar, Agent, Senior Metrological Assistant, Senior Technical Assistant and Field Supervisor were declared as Teachers as provided under Statute 19(1). The said decision of the Board of Management has never been superseded subsequently by the Board of Management. The said decision of the Board of Management has never been superseded subsequently by the Board of Management. The said resolution passed by the Board of Management is in consonance with the Statute and thus the Field Supervisors are Teachers as provided under Statute 19(1). Hence, they are entitled to get the U.G.C. Scale of Pay. Therefore, the subsequent resolution dated 30.1.1980 of the Academic Council and the Board of Management which is contrary to the Statute must be held to be without jurisdiction and non-existent in the eye of law in view of the earlier decision of the Board of Management dated 29.11.1977. Non-consideration of this important aspect of the matter by this Court renders the said finding erroneous in law, which error is apparent on the face of the record. 15.It is further urged that since sufficient materials were available on record to satisfy this Court that the post of Field Supervisor against which the petitioner is working is covered within the definition of “Teacher” as defined under Section 2(10) of the Act, no declaration is necessary by the Board to put the petitioner in the category of Teacher as his case is directly covered under category II mentioned in Statute 19(1) and not under Category III. The finding of this Court holding that he comes under Category III of Statute 19(1) and not granting him relief requires the order to be reviewed as the same would lead into conflict with the earlier decision of this Court. 16.It would be necessary for this Court to answer the reference made by the Division Bench by assigning the reasons in these two cases as extracted above. For this purpose, it would also be necessary to extract the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in OJC No.2412 of 1985 (Upendra Nath Patra v. State of Orissa & others) disposed of on 12.11.1990, which reads as under:- “.......This Court observed that having regard to the nature of the work, the University treated them as teachers coming under category II of Statute 19(1). Besides drawing out attention to the aforesaid letter referred to in the judgment, the counsel for the petitioner also relies on the office order dated 16.3.1979, referred to above, whereunder the post of Field Supervisor has been declared as a post of teacher under Statute 19(1) for the purpose of inclusion in the clerical roll in connection with the election of a member from the teachers constituencies to the Board of Management, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the aforesaid acts of the Registrar in 1979 and 1981 were not in consonance with the decision of the Board of Management. But, nothing has been placed before us by which the aforesaid acts of the Registrar had been superseded or cancelled as unauthorized or erroneous. On the contrary, the University by letters dated 16.3.1979 and 26.3.1981 had taken repeatedly the stand that the post of Field Supervisor, like that of Senior Research Assistants, was a post of teacher. We fail to understand how the post of Field Supervisor could be declared as a post of teacher for one purpose but has not been treated as a post of teacher for other purposes, for the Statutes do not so provide. If a Field Supervisor could represent and participate in the election as a teacher, by no logic can we hold that he is not a Field Supervisor for other purposes and hence we so declare. In the result, we accept the writ application and declare the post of Field Supervisor held by the petitioner as a post of teacher. He shall be entitled to consequential benefits which shall be accorded by the University to him with effect from 16.3.1979. In the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.” 17.It would also be necessary to extract the relevant portions of the office orders dated 11.12.1979 and 17.12.1979 under Annexure-1 and 2 respectively to OJC No.3390 of 1990, which are as follows: Annexure-1 “ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY BHUBANESWAR. No.23727/WES/E-II-12/79 dt.11.12.79 OFFICE ORDER Sri Binod Chandra Mohanty, Statistical Assistant, Co-ordination Unit, Bhubaneswar is appointed temporarily as Statistical Analysist at Bhubaneswar in the Farm Management Data Unit, Orissa Agril. Development Project (WBP) under this University on pay of Rs.500/- P.M. in the scale of Rs.500-15-590-EB-20-710-EB-25-760-30-790-35-825/- plus usual DA/ADA as may be sanctioned by the University from time to time. No.23727/WES/E-II-12/79 dt.11.12.79 OFFICE ORDER Sri Binod Chandra Mohanty, Statistical Assistant, Co-ordination Unit, Bhubaneswar is appointed temporarily as Statistical Analysist at Bhubaneswar in the Farm Management Data Unit, Orissa Agril. Development Project (WBP) under this University on pay of Rs.500/- P.M. in the scale of Rs.500-15-590-EB-20-710-EB-25-760-30-790-35-825/- plus usual DA/ADA as may be sanctioned by the University from time to time. The post against which this appointment is made is temporary and is likely to continue till the continuance of the project or until further orders whichever is earlier. By order of the Vice Chancellor Sd/- P.K. Misra Registrar” Annexure-2 “RESEARCH WING ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY BHUBANESWAR-3 No.7831 dt.17.12.1979 OFFICE ORDER Sri Binod Chandra Mohanty, Statistical Asst. Co-ordination Unit, World Bank Project, Bhubaneswar is relieved from his duties with effect from 17.12.79 forenoon to enable him to join Statistical Analyst under the Farm Management Data Unit, Orissa Agril. Development Project, OUAT, Bhubaneswar. Sd/- N.N. Mohanty Dean of Research” 18.It would also be necessary to extract the relevant provision of Section 2(10) of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Act, 1965, which defines the word ‘Teacher’. The said provisions run as under: “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 Statutes to be a teacher.” It would also be necessary to extract Statute 19(1) of the Statutes of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, which runs as under: “Statute 19(1) : The Teachers of the University shall be classified into three categories as follows: Category - IPersons appointed for the purpose of imparting education. Category-IIPersons appointed for the purpose of conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes, and Category-IIIPersons declared by the Statutes as teachers.” 19.The Comprehensive Scheme sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India speaks that the objectives are important for the purpose of appreciating the Teachers who are under Category II, i.e., the persons appointed for the purpose of conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes. The objectives of the said Scheme is required to be extracted here: “The main objectives of the scheme are the following:- (I) to collect representative data on inputs and outputs by cost accounting method which is more effective than survey method, (II) to provide estimation of cost of production and cost of cultivation of different crops and (III) to provide data for use of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics for fixation of price for different commodities at State level. Directorate of Agriculture, Government of India published reports on selected crops and sends back computerized date for our reference.” 20.In view of the above provisions of the Act and Statute and the work which was entrusted to the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner-officer falls within Category-II. The reliance placed upon sub-Statute (3) of Statute 19, which provides that the posts held by the teachers belonging to Category-III may be declared by the University with the prior approval of the Board are equivalent to the posts or Professor, Associate Professor, Asst.Professor as the case may. This provision has no application to the case of the petitioner-officer for the reason that he has not been appointed for the purpose of conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes under the Comprehensive Scheme. Therefore, there is no need for declaration of such officers by the University who have been doing the field work being appointed for the purpose of conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes as contended by its learned counsel. Category III of Statute 19 speaks of a different class of officers, who can also be declared by the Statute as Teachers. For that purpose Sub-Statute (3) of Statute 19 speaks of the posts held by the teachers belonging to Category-III may have to be declared by the University with the prior approval of the Board are equivalent to the posts of Professor, Associate Professor, Asst. Professor as the case may. This provision is not applicable in respect of the persons who are appointed for the purpose as required under Category-II. Professor as the case may. This provision is not applicable in respect of the persons who are appointed for the purpose as required under Category-II. Then what has been examined in Upendra Nath Patra’s case (supra) with regard to definition of a Teacher is applicable to the case of the petitioner-officer, as the petitioner-officer filed OJC No. 3390 of 1990 by annexing number of documents, i.e., copy of the office order No.2796(10) dated 26.10.1980 (Annexure-3), copy of the office order No.22915 dated 28.9.1983 (Annexure-5), copy of the order dated 4.10.1986 (Annexure-8), copies of letter No.549/CS dated 1.8.1983 and letter No.447 dated 23.6.1983 (Annexure-15), copy of letter dated 21.7.1984 (Annexure-16). The averments made in the writ petition and the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner go to show that the nature of work performed by the petitioner was meant for the purpose of conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes as enumerated under Statute 19(1) and the same fall within the definition of Teacher’, as defined under Section 2(10) of the Act, which is evident from the classification of officers made by their University under the aforesaid Statute. Persons under Category-III other than the persons under Categories-I and II can also be declared as Teachers by the University. That does not mean to say that persons who have already been appointed for the purpose of conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes, are again required to be declared as Teachers by the University with the prior approval of the Board of Management. Sub-Statute (3) of Statute 19 speaks of declaration other than Category I and II. Persons under Category-III under Sub-Statute (3) to Statute 19 can be declared by the University with the prior approval of the Board of Management who are equivalent to the posts of Professor, Associate Professor, Asst. Professor as the case may be. Therefore, interpretation sought to be made to the Statute 19(1) Category-III by the learned counsel for the University is not attracted to the fact situation of the case on hand. Hence, requirement as provided under Sub-Statute (3) to Statute 19 as contended by the learned counsel for the University is wholly untenable in law. Such interpretation is not required for the reason that Statute 19(1) classification of Teachers under category of persons in Category II is very clear. Hence, requirement as provided under Sub-Statute (3) to Statute 19 as contended by the learned counsel for the University is wholly untenable in law. Such interpretation is not required for the reason that Statute 19(1) classification of Teachers under category of persons in Category II is very clear. Persons under Category-III are only required for such declaration by the University with the prior approval of the Board of Management to make them equivalent to the posts of Professor, Associate professor, Asst. Professor as the case may be. 21.In view of the above, the persons under Category-III are different from Category-II persons having regard to the nature of their work. Therefore, the finding recorded by this Court in the order sought to be reviewed holding that the petitioner comes within Category-III and there is need for declaration by the University with the prior approval of the Board of Management as required under Sub-Statute (3) to Statute 19 is an error in law and the same suffers from the error apparent on the face of record. Further, non-consideration of the material evidence produced in support of the case of the petitioner/officer in the first Review Petition shows that the petitioner-officer has been appointed by the University and has been entrusted with the work to discharge his functions by conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes in the University and in that process he has been imparting education in the field by conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes to the agriculturists while doing the field work non-consideration of the same has resulted the finding of the fact is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the findings recorded by this Court in the order sought to be reviewed are contrary to the facts and documentary evidence and the letters issued by the University in favour of the petitioner-officer abundantly make it clear that the petitioner-officer has been imparting education to the Agriculturists in the field as he has been appointed for the purpose of conducting or guiding research or extension educational programmes. Therefore, the finding of the Division Bench that the petitioner will come under Category-III is erroneous in law. Hence, the finding and conclusion arrived at by this Court in the order sought to be reviewed as the same is erroneous in law and suffers from error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the finding of the Division Bench that the petitioner will come under Category-III is erroneous in law. Hence, the finding and conclusion arrived at by this Court in the order sought to be reviewed as the same is erroneous in law and suffers from error apparent on the face of record. Hence, the order sought to be reviewed is required to be reviewed and the decision rendered in Upendra Nath Patra’s case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts situation of the case of the petitioner-officer within the definition of Section 2(10) of the Act read with Sub-Statutes (1) and (2) of the Statute 19, which makes out the fact that the decision in Upendra Nath Patra’s case is the correct legal position holding that declaration of the University with prior approval of the Board is already there while persons under Category II under Sub-Statute (2) to Statute 19 have been considered. Therefore, no further declaration of the University with prior approval of the Board of Management was required in that case is the correct view taken by the Division Bench in Upendra Nath Patra’s case. Hence, the subsequent decision taken by this Court without examining Upendra Nath Patra’s case is not the correct view. Upendra Nath Patra’s case (supra), which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court is one more strong ground supporting the finding recorded by this Court as per the provision of Section 2(10) of the Act and Statute 19(1)(2) of the Statutes. 22.For the reasons indicated above, we hold that the decision rendered in Upendra Nath Patra’s case (supra) has correctly laid down the law, but not the subsequent decision, which is overruled. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner-officer holding that the decision taken Upendra Nath Patra’s case has laid down the correct legal position and not applying the same in the petitioner’s case is bad in law. Hence, Civil Review No. 106 of 1992 is allowed and Civil Review No. 102 of 1993 is dismissed. PRADIP MOHANTY, J.I agree I. MAHANTY, J.I agree. Order accordingly.