Smt. Punam Singh vs State Of U.P.And Another
2012 Latest Caselaw 5551 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 50928 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Punam Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Mrs. Arti Raje
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.

Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal,J.

1.   We have heard Sri R.N. Singh holding brief for the counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the State respondents.

2.   On 15.10.2012, we passed the following order:-

"List has been revised. No one appears for the petitioner.

It is alleged that the petitioner is running coaching institute by the name of Krishna Coaching Institute in which her husband is also teaching. She has prayed for writ of mandamus restraining the District Inspector of Schools, Karvi, Chitrakoot not to harass the petitioner for imparting coaching and establishing the coaching centre.

The averments in the writ petition would show that the respondent no.2 has objection on running the coaching institute under Section 7 of the U.P. Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002 on the ground that the petitioner's husband is a teacher within the meaning of Section 2 (K) of the Act.

In para 15 it is stated that the respondent and his employees are harassing the petitioner on the ground that her husband is imparting education in violation and in contravention of the Act, since the day the petitioner has applied for registration of the coaching centre.

The petitioner admits in para 5 that her husband is a contract teacher in Goswami Govt. Degree College Karvi appointed on 8.8.2005 on contract amount of Rs.8000/- per month. It is alleged that the contract teachers are not included within the definition of Section 2 (K) of the Act. The petitioner has not given her qualification and has not stated that anyone else is engaged for teaching in the coaching institute. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is stated that Rule 3 (h) of the Service Rules applicable to U.P. Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules, 1985 means a person, who is substantively appointed and since the petitioner's husband is a teacher appointed on contract, the restriction under the U.P. Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002 did not apply to him.

The object and purpose of registration of the coaching institute and in restraining the teachers teaching in the schools and colleges in coaching institute to curb the menace of the coaching, by the teachers, who are not teaching in the educational institutions, and are persuading the students to attend the coaching classes vitiating the entire atmosphere of schools and colleges.

We are unable to agree with the contention in the writ petition that the teachers appointed on contract, will not be included within the meaning of teachers under the Act.

Further we may observe that this writ petition has not been filed by the petitioner's husband, who can be said to be the person aggrieved to file the writ petition to claim the prayers.

After the order was dictated, a mention has been made that Smt. Arti Raje has not come to the Court as her mother has expired.

On the request made on her behalf, put up on 29.10.2012 in the additional cause list."

3.   It is submitted that the petitioner is running a coaching institution, which is registered under Section 3 of U.P. Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002 (in short the Act). The list of teachers as required under the Act who will be teaching in the coaching institution, is not given either in the application for registration or in the pleading in the writ petition.

4.   Sri R.N. Singh, relying on the judgment of the Court in XL-IIT Forum and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in writ petition No. 34022 of 2002, decided on 27.05.2003, upholding the validity of the Act, submits that since the petitioner's husband has not been regularly appointed, there is no prohibition under the Act for him to teach in the coaching classes run by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's husband was appointed as a teacher vide order dated 8.8.2005 of the Joint Director of Education (Higher), Allahabad to teach Biology in Government Degree College, Karvi, District Chitrakoot. He is still serving as a teacher on contact, and is not in regular appointment.

5.   Sri R.N. Singh submits that the definition of teacher under Section 2 (K) of the Act includes only regular teacher, and not teachers appointed on contract. The petitioner's husband does not have permanent employment and since there is no bar under the Act for the teachers appointed on the contract to teach in the coaching institution, the action of respondent in harassing the petitioner and restraining her husband from teaching in the coaching institution is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has prayed for a direction that the District Inspector of Schools and its employees be restrained from harassing the petitioner for imparting coaching and establishing coaching centre, as prayed in her representation dated 22.09.2012.

6.   Sri R.N. Singh has relied on the observation made by the Court in XL-IIT Forum and others (Supra), which has been quoted as below:-

"In paragraph 3(a) of the counter affidavit it is stated that coaching classes are being run in almost all the cities in the State and complaints are often made that the full time teachers drawing salary from the State Exchequer not only avoid proper teaching in the college but promote, some times force, the students to attend these coaching classes. Instead of attending classes in the institutions the teachers preferred to attend the coaching even during college hours and students are exploited thereby. As stated in Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit, while such teachers take salary from the State Exchequer, they encourage the students to join their coaching classes, and only those who join the coaching get good marks. Often the teachers do not teach in the institutions but only teach in the coaching centres although they take salary from the institutions. The students are often compelled to join the coaching, which results in their economic exploitation.

xxx xxx xxx

Further it must be borne in mind that there is no absolute prohibition on running coaching institutions under the impugned statutes. There is simply a regulation and restriction to a limited extent designed to serve a largely public interest, namely, to ensure that the teachers employed in the colleges and universities on the regular side devote all their attentions to their respective colleges and universities where they are supposed to be serving instead of devoting their time and attention to the business of teaching in coaching institutes. That being so we find no substance in the challenge to the statutes.

xxx xxx xxx

In our opinion the impugned Act would also serve a good purpose by giving employment to a large number of educated people who are unemployed, since full time teachers are prohibited from doing coaching. Thus the educated unemployed persons will have more chance of getting jobs in the coaching centers / coaching institutions. This will also help in bringing down unemployment among educated unemployed people, and also give employment to retired teachers."

7.   In XL-IIT Forum and others (Supra), this Court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Regulation of Coaching Act 2002. The Court considered the aims and object of education and lauded the purpose, for which the Act was enacted. It was held that the coaching has became menace, and the teachers, inspite of appointed on full time to teach in the colleges and drawing salary from the public exchequer, do not perform their duties. They insist upon the students to attend the coaching classes, where they teach either the same students, or students of some other colleges, who have suffered at the hands of substandard teaching by other such teachers.

8.   The definition of teachers under the Act does not restrict its meaning only to those regular teachers, who are not appointed permanently nor confining only those teachers who are drawing salary from public exchequer.  There may be variety of circumstances in which regular selection may be delayed, and one of these may be repeated representations, writ petitions filed by teachers appointed on ad hoc basis or on contract,  to regularize them.  These teachers are required to take classes as the regular teachers, and are now paid almost at par with the regular teachers. The Government has also framed schemes from time to time to regularize these teachers, who hold the minimum qualification and were eligible at the time of appointment.

9.   The entire object and purpose of the Act would be defeated, if the court accepts the submission of the petitioner for exempting the adhoc,  part-time or contract teachers appointed in the Government Schools and Colleges and are getting salary/remuneration from public exchequer the purview of the Act, and to permit them to teach in the coaching institutions.

10.   For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contract/ad hoc teachers are not included within the meaning teachers under Section 2 (K) of the U.P. Regulation of Coaching Act 2002.  The writ petition is dismissed.

11.   We may, however,  observe that the State Government may issue a notification in this regard, so that there may not be any ambiguity in the interpretation of the Act under which the teachers appointed on ad hoc/ contract/honorarium basis may start/teach in the coaching institution, to defeat the very purpose and object of the Act.

12.   Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned Chief Standing Counsel for its communication to the State Government.

Order Date :- 8.11.2012

nethra