Recently, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated the established law on the doctrine of res judicata that has been recognized by this Court in several judgments. The Court opined: “The doctrine itself is based on public policy flowing from the age-old legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that in the interest of the State there should be an end to litigation and no party ought to be vexed twice in litigation for one and the same cause”. It is the case of the appellant that he 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. He was again terminated on 22.09.1990, on the eve of Puja Holidays. However, he was re-engaged on 01.11.1990. Accordingly, respondent-authorities acted in terms of the true purport of the order. They subjected the appellant also to the process of screening by the Screening Committee and appointed him as Primary Teacher (Bengali Medium) in the Railway Higher Secondary School against an existing vacancy. However, aggrieved by the same, appellant approached the tribunal. The appellant’s grievance was that he should have been absorbed as Assistant Teacher since he worked as a substitute Assistant Teacher and taught Classes XI and XII. The tribunal dismissed appellant’s application and the same was upheld by the High Court. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the Court was of the view that the appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is not tenable. It observed that the appellant was appointed as a substitute teacher in the pay scale of a primary teacher. In fact, when he filed the first round of proceedings,no plea was raised that he worked as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section. Even before the Tribunal, the argument was only about regularization. Before this Court too, no claim for regularization as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary Section was made. The Screening Committee having considered him, pursuant to the orders of this Court, had thought it fit to absorb him only as a primary teacher; the Screening Committee itself was pursuant to the orders of this Court; the records of his appointment as a substitute teacher admittedly show that he was only appointed as a substitute primary teacher; it is on the completion of three months as substitute primary teacher that he acquired temporary status and on absorption now he became entitled to certain benefits.