BINOD CHANDRA MAHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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, 1.990 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:

(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, 1979 AIR(SC) 1725. 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. 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: