BHAVANI Vs. BHANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have no doubt that the court below erred in dismissing the revision petitioners suit, for arrears of salary, and to me, it seems clear that she must be given the decree she sought.

(2.) Admittedly the defendant, who is the manager of a private school governed by what is known as the P. S. S. (Private Secondary Schools) Scheme, appointed the plaintiff as the headmistress of his school on a salary of Rs. 45/- per mensem inclusive of allowances. She worked as the headmistress for three months, the months of June, July and August 1956, at the end of which she resigned because her appointment was not approved by the Education Department of the Government as required by the Scheme - it is the common case that the appointment was in terms of the Scheme. Admittedly again, the defendant has paid the plaintiff not a pie for her salary, and in dismissing the suit the court below has accepted his contention that the appointment made by him was conditional on departmental approval so that, when that approval was declined, it was as if there was no appointment at all and as if the plaintiff had never worked at all. Further, that under the Scheme the obligation to pay the salary of the teachers of a private school is the obligation of the Government and not of the proprietor of the school.

(3.) The result is unjust enough to shock the judicial conscience and point to the unsoundness of the contention which seems to me to stem from a fundamental misconception of the scope and effect of the Scheme. As I understand the Scheme, it does not create any relationship contractual or otherwise between the teachers in a private school and the Government though it is no doubt designed to improve the lot of the former and save them from unauthorised exactions and other harassment by the management. (See John v. State ( 1956 KLT 391 ). Under the provisions of the Education Code, the entire salary of the teachers of a private recognised school is paid to the management by the Government as a teaching grant, and the P. S. S. Scheme only lays down the conditions to be satisfied for earning this grant. One of the conditions is that the teachers shall possess certain prescribed qualifications and be paid according to the prescribed scales. Another, that their appointment shall be submitted to the department for approval. A third, that the management shall prepare a pay bill for its teaching staff, get it countersigned by the inspecting officer, encash it at the treasury, and disburse the salary to the teachers without making any deductions and obtain their acquittance. So, although the expense is, in the result, borne by the Government, so that in that sense it may be said that the Government pays the teachers, the statement is only an approximation. In truth what happens is that the Government pays the management a teaching grant equivalent to the aggregate salary of the teachers, and the management in turn pays the teachers their salary. As I have said the several rules in the Scheme lay down the conditions for earning the grant, and they see also to its proper application. The teachers are appointed by the management, in its own right and not on behalf of the Government, the departmental approval being only a condition for earning the grant; the teachers contract of service is with the management and in no sense with the Government; he is the servant of the management and not of the Government; and the obligation to pay him his salary is the obligation of the management and not of the Government, even if it is the Government that, under the Scheme and subject to its conditions, provides the management with the necessary funds.