Supreme Court Grants Continuity of Service to Substitute Teacher: Samir Kumar Majumder vs. Union of India (20 September 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 836

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a substitute teacher, after being absorbed into a permanent position, claim continuity of service from the date they acquired temporary status? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a school teacher, Samir Kumar Majumder, who was initially appointed as a substitute teacher and later absorbed as a primary teacher. The court examined the interpretation of a Master Circular concerning the rights of substitute teachers and ruled in favor of the teacher, granting him continuity of service from the date he acquired temporary status.

Case Background

Samir Kumar Majumder was initially appointed as a substitute teacher at the Railway Higher Secondary School, Alipurduar Junction, on 05 December 1989. He faced repeated terminations and re-engagements, creating artificial breaks in his service. He was terminated before the summer vacations on 09 June 1990 and re-engaged on 24 July 1990. He was again terminated on 22 September 1990, before the Puja Holidays, and re-engaged on 01 November 1990. Fearing further breaks, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench.

The Tribunal initially dismissed his application on 31 October 1994, relying on a similar case. However, the Supreme Court later ruled in favor of similarly situated teachers, directing their absorption and continuity of service. Following this, the Railway authorities subjected Majumder to a screening process and appointed him as a Primary Teacher on 02 January 1998. Aggrieved by being appointed as a Primary Teacher instead of an Assistant Teacher and the denial of continuity of service, he approached the CAT again, which was also dismissed. The High Court also upheld the CAT’s decision. Majumder then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, initially dismissed Majumder’s application on 31 October 1994, relying on a similar case, Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta) vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Tribunal held that substitute teachers could not claim regularization as a matter of right and that selection by the Railway Recruitment Board was essential for regular appointment. However, the Supreme Court, in a batch of appeals including the case of Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta), set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and directed the absorption of substitute teachers through a screening committee, granting them continuity of service.

Majumder’s case was also taken to the Supreme Court, which directed that he be considered for regular selection with age relaxation. Following this, he was appointed as a Primary Teacher on 02 January 1998. Subsequently, Majumder filed another application before the CAT, Calcutta Bench, challenging his appointment as a Primary Teacher instead of an Assistant Teacher and the denial of continuity of service. The CAT dismissed his application, and the High Court at Calcutta upheld the CAT’s decision, stating that the benefit of continuous service was specifically rejected in his case. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Master Circular dated 29 January 1991, which outlines the benefits and conditions of service for substitute teachers in the Railways. Key provisions include:

• Clause 4.3: Substitute school teachers are granted temporary status after three months of continuous service. Their service is treated as continuous for all purposes except seniority upon their eventual absorption.
• Clause 5.1: Substitutes who have acquired temporary status should be screened by a Screening Committee, not a Selection Board, before being absorbed into regular service.
• Clause 6: The date of appointment of a substitute teacher should be the date on which they attain temporary status after three months of continuous service, if followed by regular absorption.

The court also considered the principle of constructive res judicata, which prevents parties from raising issues that could have been raised in previous proceedings. The principle is based on the legal maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”, meaning that in the interest of the state, there should be an end to litigation.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant, Samir Kumar Majumder, argued that he was entitled to continuity of service from 04 March 1990, the date he completed three months of continuous service and acquired temporary status under Clause 4.3 of the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991.
• He contended that he should have been absorbed as an Assistant Teacher, as he had worked in that capacity, teaching Classes XI and XII. Alternatively, if considered a Primary Teacher, he should still receive the benefits under the Master Circular, with his service reckoned from 04 March 1990.
• The appellant argued that the Supreme Court’s order in his case (dated 15.02.1996) should be read in conjunction with the order in Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta)’s case (dated 13.10.1995), as his case was initially dismissed by the Tribunal for the same reasons as Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta)’s.
• He emphasized that the authorities subjected him to the same screening process as other substitute teachers, indicating that they also understood his case to be similar. Therefore, there was no reason to deny him continuity of service.
• The appellant argued that the age relaxation granted by the Supreme Court was an additional relief and should not be interpreted as a denial of continuity of service.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The Union of India, representing the respondents, argued that the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher was unjustified, as he was initially appointed as a substitute primary teacher.
• They contended that the order of absorption as a Primary Teacher on 02 January 1998 was correct and that the order of 28 December 1998, denying continuity of service, was justified, as the Supreme Court’s order in Majumder’s case did not specifically grant continuity of service, unlike the order in Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta)’s case.
• The respondent argued that Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta) was in service at the time of absorption, while Majumder was not, making their cases different.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is tenable.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to continuity of service from the date he acquired temporary status under the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta) vs. The Union of India & Ors. [CITATION]: The court distinguished this case, noting that while it granted continuity of service, the appellant was similarly situated and entitled to the same benefits.
• Henderson vs. Henderson [CITATION]: The court used this case to explain the principle of constructive res judicata, which barred the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher.
• Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [CITATION]: The court used this case to further explain the application of constructive res judicata.
• M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka and Others [CITATION]: The court used this case to explain the public policy of ending litigation.
• Master Circular dated 29.01.1991: The court relied on the Master Circular to determine the rights of substitute teachers, particularly regarding temporary status and continuity of service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Master Circular: The court emphasized the importance of the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991, which clearly outlines the rights of substitute teachers, including the grant of temporary status after three months of continuous service and the right to continuity of service upon absorption.
• Equality and Non-Discrimination: The court noted that the authorities had subjected the appellant to the same screening process as other substitute teachers and that there was no justifiable reason to deny him the benefit of continuity of service while granting it to others.
• Interpretation of Previous Orders: The court clarified that its previous order in the appellant’s case should not be interpreted as denying him the benefits of the Master Circular. The court held that the order had to be read with the order in Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta)’s case, which had specifically granted continuity of service.
• Substance over Form: The court looked at the substance of the matter, noting that the appellant had indeed worked as a substitute teacher and had acquired temporary status, entitling him to the benefits of the Master Circular.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the appellant’s case was different from others and stated that the denial of continuity of service was not justified. The court emphasized that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of the Master Circular, which clearly provided for continuity of service from the date of acquiring temporary status.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“The authorities are wrong in stating that in the case of the appellant this Court had not directed any specific order regarding continuity of service. This Court’s order of 15.02.1996 has to be read with the order in the case of Smt. Jayasree Deb Roy (Dutta) dated 13.10.1995.”

“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.”

“We direct that the appellant will be entitled to take into account the past service rendered by him as substitute teacher in different spells, from the date of obtaining temporary status (04.03.1990).”

Key Takeaways

• Substitute teachers who have completed three months of continuous service are entitled to temporary status.
• Upon absorption into a regular position, substitute teachers are entitled to continuity of service from the date they acquired temporary status.
• Authorities must treat similarly situated employees equally and cannot discriminate without a justifiable reason.
• Orders of the court must be interpreted in a manner that promotes justice and fairness.
• The Master Circular dated 29.01.1991 is a crucial document that outlines the rights of substitute teachers in the Railways.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The appellant’s past service as a substitute teacher from the date of obtaining temporary status (04.03.1990) should be taken into account.
• The appellant should be extended the same benefits as were extended to others who were granted continuity by the letter of 28.12.1998.
• The pay of the appellant should be re-fixed, granting continuity of service with all consequential benefits, including increments and allowances, as per Clause 6 of the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991.
• The appellant’s retiral benefits should be reworked, and the unpaid arrears should be paid with 6% interest from the respective due dates.
• The payment should be made within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that substitute teachers who have acquired temporary status after three months of continuous service are entitled to continuity of service from the date of acquiring temporary status upon their absorption into a regular position. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991 and reinforces the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the benefits under the Master Circular cannot be denied to substitute teachers who have fulfilled the conditions for acquiring temporary status.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Samir Kumar Majumder vs. The Union of India & Ors. provides significant relief to substitute teachers by clarifying their rights to continuity of service upon absorption into regular positions. The court emphasized the importance of the Master Circular dated 29.01.1991 and the principle of equal treatment. While the court rejected the appellant’s claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher, it upheld his right to continuity of service from the date he acquired temporary status, ensuring that substitute teachers are not deprived of their rightful benefits.