1. Substitute teacher — Claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher and continuity of service — Denial of benefits by authorities — Appeal against High Court judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 975
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Samir Kumar Majumder – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6027 of 2014
Decided On : 20-09-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In interest of State there should be end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and same cause.
(2) On completion of three months of continuous service as substitute teacher, incumbent acquires temporary status—Substitutes who have acquired temporary status should be screened by Screening Committee and not by Selection Board—Date of appointment should be date on which they attained temporary status in the event they are regularly absorbed.
(1) In interest of State there should be end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in a litigation for one and same cause.
(2) On completion of three months of continuous service as substitute teacher, incumbent acquires temporary status—Substitutes who have acquired temporary status should be screened by Screening Committee and not by Selection Board—Date of appointment should be date on which they attained temporary status in the event they are regularly absorbed.
Subject
Employment Law - Absorption and Continuity of Service
Headnote
Constructive Res Judicata - Employment Dispute - Master Circular dated 29.01.1991, Para 4.3, 5.1, and 6 - The court discussed the appellant's claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section and his claim for continuity of service under the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991. The court held that the appellant's claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher was not tenable due to constructive res judicata, as it had not been raised in earlier proceedings. However, the court found that the appellant was entitled to continuity of service under the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991 from the date he obtained temporary status.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a school teacher, sought absorption as an Assistant Teacher and continuity of service after being initially appointed as a Substitute Teacher.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher was not tenable due to constructive res judicata but held that he was entitled to continuity of service under the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991.Issues:
The issues revolved around the appellant's claims for absorption as an Assistant Teacher and continuity of service based on his employment history.Ratio Decidendi:
The court applied constructive res judicata to dismiss the claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher but upheld the entitlement to continuity of service under the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991.Final Decision:
The High Court's decision was set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed with directions to grant continuity of service benefits to the appellant.Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv. Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Ms. Priya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv. Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Ms. Priya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher and continuity of service under Master Circular — Opposition based on initial appointment as primary teacher and absence of specific court directions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
3. Claim for higher post barred by constructive res judicata — Continuity of service granted based on Master Circular and parity with similarly situated employees. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
4. Doctrine of constructive res judicata bars claims that could have been raised in earlier proceedings — Temporary status under Master Circular entitles absorbed substitutes to continuity of service. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 40 )
5. Appeal partly allowed — Claim for Assistant Teacher post rejected — Continuity of service granted from date of temporary status with consequential pay re-fixation and arrears. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 )
6. When does the doctrine of constructive res judicata apply to employment claims?
It applies when a party fails to bring forward a point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and could have been raised with reasonable diligence in earlier proceedings. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 )
7. How is the date of appointment determined for substitute teachers who are regularly absorbed?
If a substitute teacher attains temporary status after continuous service (three months for teachers), the date of appointment recorded in the service book should be the date they attained temporary status. (Para 39 , 40 )
8. Are gaps in service between engagements considered when determining temporary status for substitute teachers?
No, gaps occurring in service between two engagements should be ignored for the purpose of determining temporary status upon completion of the required continuous service period. (Para 39 , 40 )
9. Can an employee be denied continuity of service if similarly situated employees were granted the benefit based on a general circular?
No, an employee identically situated with other absorbees cannot be discriminated against and denied benefits provided under a Master Circular simply because a court order did not explicitly reiterate those benefits. (Para 38 , 41 , 42 )
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Samir Kumar Majumder (the appellant) was a school teacher at the Railway Higher Secondary School, Alipurduar Junction. He taught mathematics to the school children. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’) dated 19.07.2011 in W.P.C.T. No. 130 of 2009, the appellant is before us in appeal. By the said judgment, the High Court denied him absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section and also rejected his claim for continuity of service.
Relevant Facts:
2. The appellant was initially appointed as a Substitute Teacher on 05.12.1989. According to him, artificial breaks were created in his service by terminating him on the eve of the school vacations and thereafter reappointing him. The appellant states that he was terminated first before the summer vacations on 09.06.1990 and was re-engaged on 24.07.1990. His further case is that he was again terminated on 22.09.1990, on the eve of Puja Holidays. According to him, he was re-engaged on 01.11.1990.
3. When the matter stood thus, the appellant, fearing further creation of artificial breaks filed an application being O.A. No. 209 of 1990 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) Guwahati Bench. He prayed for setting aside of the letters of termination dated 09.06.1990 and 19.09.1990 and also prayed for regularization of his service and for salary during the period of breaks.
4. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 03.12.1990 and it is an admitted fact that he continued till 12.11.1994 when his services were again terminated, after the Tribunal had dismissed his application on 31.10.1994.
5. The Tribunal, while dismissing his application on 31.10.1994, solely relied on another order of the same Tribunal, passed on the same day, in O.A. No. 149(G) of 1989 in the case of Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta) vs. The Union of India and Others. Para 4 of the order in the appellant’s case is important, which we extract herein-below:
“4. We have examined the question of regularization of substitute teachers in detail in our order on O.A. No. 149(G) of 1989 passed today. We have come to the conclusion that the substitute teachers cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. We have also held that selection by the Railway Recruitment Board is essential for regular appointment. For the same reasons we hold that the applicant is not entitled to be granted any relief of regularization. Moreover, in the instant case although the applicant had appeared before the Recruitment Board he was not selected. That does not entitled him to ask for any relief of regularization on the basis of his earlier service as substitute teacher.”
6. O.A. No. 149(G) of 1989 was carried in Appeal to this Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 9424 of 1995 along with the batch of matters of similarly situated candidates, which was disposed of on 13.10.1995. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
“......The appellants were, therefore, entitled to the benefit conferred under Para 5.1 of the circular (Circular R.B. No. 12/91 M.C. No. 20/91 E(NG)/90/SC/Master) dated January 29, 1991, and on that basis the appellants are entitled to absorption on regular basis through the process of screening by the screening committee in accordance with the said provision and they are not required to face selection by the Railway Recruitment Board for the purpose of regular absorption. The judgment of the Tribunal holding otherwise cannot, therefore, be upheld and has to be set aside.
After the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal, the services of the appellants have been terminated.
In case the appellants are found suitable for absorption by the Screening Committee, they should be appointed on regular basis on the post that was held by them and they would also be entitled to continuity of service. The appeals are, therefore, allowed, the judgments of the Tribunal dated October 31,1994 in the applica
