Tortious Liability of a Principal - Ap Lau CET

Mamta Singh, a student of Class 9, was physically abused by her class teacher, Mr. Gupta. Mamta's mother alleged that the School management was vicariously liable for Mr. Gupta's actions under the principle of Respondeat Superior (RS). The court observed that RS is not applicable in the instant case as Mr. Gupta was not an employee of the School at the time of the incident. However, the court also observed that the School management is still liable for Mamta's injuries as the School failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting and supervising its employees.

So, friends, is the School liable under the principle of Respondeat Superior or under a different principle? Which is correct and why?