SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDER versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 254 · Decided: 20-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 254 : 2023 INSC 836
254
CASE DETAILS
SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDER
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6027 of 2014)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
[J. K. MAHESHWARI AND K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justiﬁ ed in 
denying the absorption of appellant as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher 
Secondary section and also rejecting his claim for continuity of service. 
Service Law – Claim for absorption as an Assistant Teacher in the 
Higher Secondary section – Tenable or not:
Held: The appellant was appointed as a substitute teacher in the 
payscale of a primary teacher – When he ﬁ led the ﬁ rst 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 ﬁ t 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]
255
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.
SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDER v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
256
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6027 of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2011 of the High Court at 
Calcutta in W.P.C.T. No.130 of 2009.
Appearances:
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Daisy Hannah, Madhav Maira, Ms. Sampriti 
Baksi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Nachiketa Joshi, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Priya Mishra, Rupesh 
Kumar, Amrish Kumar, Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for 
the Respondents.
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Samir Kumar Majumder (the appellant) was a school teacher at 
the Railway Higher Secondary School, Alipurduar Junction
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.