In Brief
A substitute school teacher at a Railway Higher Secondary School challenged his absorption as a Primary Teacher instead of an Assistant Teacher and his denial of continuity of service. The Supreme Court rejected his claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher due to constructive res judicata, as this issue was never raised in earlier proceedings. However, the Court allowed his claim for continuity of service, holding that identically situated teachers had been granted it under the Master Circular 1991. The appellant, having acquired temporary status after three months of continuous service, was entitled to continuity from that date (04.03.1990) upon absorption. The Court directed recalculation of pay, increments, allowances, and arrears with interest within eight weeks.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.