Held: The appellant was appointed as a substitute teacher in the payscale of a primary teacher – When he filed the first round of proceedings in O.A. No. 209 of 1991, no plea was raised that he worked as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section – Before the Tribunal, the argument was only about regularization – The Screening Committee having considered him, pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, has thought it fit to absorb him only as a primary teacher; the Screening Committee itself was pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court and based on the Master Circular of 29.01.1991 wherein the claims of the candidates like the appellant were examined; the records of his appointment as a substitute teacher admittedly showed that he was only appointed as a substitute primary teacher – Also, in the earlier round of proceedings culminating in the order of the Supreme Court dated 15.02.1996, this issue was never raised – His claim for absorption as an assistant teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is clearly barred by constructive res judicata – Thus, the appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is not tenable. [Paras 29, 31 and 32]
Service Law – Claim for continuity of service – Relief denied by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: The only reason given in the order denying continuity for the appellant while granting continuity of the same for the others was that, in the case of the appellant, the Supreme Court had not directed any specific order regarding continuity of service – The authorities are wrong in stating that in the case of the appellant, the Supreme Court had not directed any specific order regarding continuity of service – Nowhere in the said order in the appellant’s appeal had the benefits available to the appellant under the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991 been taken away – In the case of Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta), by abundant caution, the Master Circular was referred to and the rights granted therein were reiterated expressly – The appellant being identically situated with the other absorbees in the order of 02.01.1998 could not have been discriminated and denied the benefit of his service from 04.03.1990 to the date of his absorption – The Tribunal and the High Court have grossly erred in denying the relief by wrongly understanding the orders of the Supreme Court and the legal position – Thus, the appellant should be extended the same benefits as were extended to others, who were granted continuity by the letter of 28.12.1998. [Paras 38, 41, 42, 43 and 44]
Doctrines – Doctrine of constructive res judicata – discussed. Maxims – Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium – discussed. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2000) 2 SCC 552 : [2000] 1 SCR 166 – relied on. Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta) v. The Union of India & Ors. C.A. No. 9424 of 1995 arising out of O.A. No. 149(G) of 1989; M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2011) 3 SCC 408:[2011] 2 SCR 435 – referred to.
Henderson v. Henderson, (1843) 3 Hare, 100 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.