ROSAMMA Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case of a mite against the might.

(2.) The petitioner is a lady Drawing Teacher. She reached this Court some time in 1992 instituting a Writ Petition which led to Ext.P1 judgment. It was found categorically by this Court in that judgment that the 4th respondent, the Manager of a corporate educational agency, is liable to pay the amounts due to the petitioner by way of salary from 16.6.1983 to 4.9.1992 after deducting whatever amounts she would have received by salary from the school. That judgment was rendered in two connected Writ Petitions. The Manager, the State and the petitioner were among the parties to those cases. It was contended by the Corporate Manager before the learned Judge at the hearing of the cases leading to Ext.P1 judgment that even if the petitioner had any claim by virtue of Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A since she had not intimated the 4th respondent (the Corporate Manager) about her anxiety to join in the school, she has to suffer the loss for her inaction. On behalf of the Government it was urged before the learned Judge that the Government had already paid salary to the teacher whom the Corporate Manager had appointed (5th respondent in O.P.7796/1992) for the period from 15.6.1983 and that being so, even if O.P.7796/1992 (the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein) is allowed, the Government may not be directed to meet the financial consequences and since the present situation has arisen only because of the lapses on the part of the Corporate Manager, it is for the said Corporate Educational Agency to bear the loss.

(3.) Unfortunately, it is pointed out on behalf of the Corporate Educational Agency before me that the said judgment was rendered without hearing them as regards any liability to compensate. I say so because one of the main contentions in opposition to this Writ Petition is that Ext.P1 judgment was rendered without any claim being made against the Manager and without any such issue being raised. Ext.P1 judgment was issued by this Court by holding that the claim of the petitioner is that she must be paid salary from 16.6.1983 to 4.9.1992 and that the answer to the question whether it is for the Government to pay the said amount, is in the negative. The Government had already paid the salary for the said period to the 5th respondent and the Government cannot be asked to pay over again. Accordingly, the learned Judge ordered that "it is for the 4th respondent who has to face the music and make good the payment". The learned Judge disposed of the said case as per Ext.P1 as follows: