SC: Post of Field Supervisor can be treated as a Teacher only after a declaration by the University with the prior approval of the Board

The Supreme Court on Monday said that Article of Subject Supervisor can be dealt with as a Trainer only following a declaration by the University with the prior approval of the Board and not if not. This determination was provided by the bench of Hon’ble Justices S.A. BOBDE and L. NAGESWARA RAO in the situation of Registrar, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technologies & Anr. V Upendra Nath Patra & Anr. Etcetera. [ CIVIL APPEAL Nos .4275-4277 of2018].
Authentic Jurisdiction Scenario (OJC) No. 2412 of 1985 submitted by Shri Upendra Nath Patra, Respondent No.1 in the Attractiveness arising out of Exclusive Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31165 of 2011, was authorized by a Division Bench of the Higher Court of Orissa by a judgment dated 12th November, 1990. The put up of Subject Supervisor held by him was declared equal to the put up of Trainer and he was held entitled to all the benefits hooked up to the put up of Trainer with effect from 16th March, 1979. Shri Binod Chandra Mahanti,Respondent No.1 in the Attractiveness arising out of Exclusive Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31166 of 2011, submitted OJC No.3390 of 1990 searching for fixation of ideal scale of pay for the put up of Subject Supervisor by managing him as a Trainer. OJC No.3390 of 1990 was dismissed by an additional Division Bench of the Higher Court of Orissa by its judgment dated 25th September, 1992. It was declared that the put up of Subject Supervisor are not able to be regarded as equal to training put up. Civil Assessment No.102 of 1993 submitted by the Appellant against a judgment in OJC No.2412 of 1985 and Civil Assessment No.106 of 1992 submitted 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 perspective of the divergent views in the above-described judgments. By a judgment dated 25th February, 2011 a Whole Bench of the Orissa Higher 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 Attractiveness was submitted tough the correctness of the said Judgment of the total Bench.
In accordance to the total Bench, there was no want for declaration of officers who have been performing field get the job done, as Academics. The total Bench held that Statute 19(3) of the Statutes is not applicable to this kind of people falling in Class II. Conducting or guiding investigation is element of schooling in accordance to the total Bench and Subject Supervisors who were imparting schooling, want not be declared as Academics. The judgment in Upendra Nath Patra’s situation (supra) was upheld and the subsequent judgment by an additional Division Bench in Binod Chandra Mahanti was overruled by the total Bench.
The Supreme Court in its determination said ” We are not able to persuade ourselves to accept the interpretation of Statute 19 of the Statutes of the total Bench of the Higher Court. The Academics of the University are classified into three groups (i) these appointed for imparting schooling, (ii) these appointed for the function of conducting or guiding the investigation or extension educational programmes, and (iii) people declared by the Statutes as Academics.A simple reading through of Statute 19 would show that Subject Supervisors who drop in Class II saying to be Academics have to be declared by the University as Academics. The finding recorded by the total Bench that Statute 19(3) does not use to people falling in Class II was not proper.”
The Supreme Court more added “We are of the belief that a put up of Subject Supervisor can be dealt with as a Trainer only following a declaration by the University with the prior approval of the Board and not if not.”
Supreme Court also approved the logic of the Division Bench of the Higher Court in Upendra Nath Partra’s situation (supra) that the declaration of a Trainer for one particular function will keep excellent for the many others way too.
Using note of the point that the Respondents have retired from provider and have been combating for their rights for nearly 30 decades the court docket in its judgment said “We do not see any motive to avoid the Respondents from obtaining the benefits of their getting dealt with as Academics.”

Sugam Shine

Sugam Glow

University student from College of Law, Galgotia’s University, Increased Noida.

Sugam Shine

Most up-to-date posts by Sugam Glow (see all)

Prior postUnion Govt invites community feedback for introduction of section 112A in Finance Act, 2018
Next postThe Technology of Censored Outrages: Specified Inquiries to Ponder Upon

Shares 0

Post Author: gupta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *