# Smt. Punam Singh v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1504
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-11-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50928 of 2012
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, Aditya Nath Mittal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-punam-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-42340
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Regulation of Coaching Act 2002-Section
3-Restrictions
on
running
coachingpetitioner
running
coaching
duly
registered-list of teachers not supplies in
registration form-petitioner's husband
teaching as ad-hoc teacher in local
college-submission that under section 2
K of U.P. Higher Education (Group-A)
Service Rules 1985-hence restriction by
D.I.O.S. Uncalled for-held-contract/adhoc teachers getting salary from public
exchequer-are within purview of Act-to
avoid
ambiguity-Govt.
To
issue
necessary notification to avoid defect the
very
purpose
of
the
Act-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-9 and 10

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.

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.

## Text

1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

amount has been recovered, can always
request for refund of the same.

20. In result, the prayer of the petitioner
for quashing the citation dated 30th July,
2012 cannot be accepted and is refused.
However, it shall be open for the petitioner to
seek refund of the amount in the event it is
held in the complaint filed against him that
no offence is committed by the employer
under Section 3 of the 1986 Act.

21. Subject to above, the writ petition is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50928 of 2012

Smt. Punam Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P .and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mrs. Arti Raje
Sri R.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Regulation of Coaching Act 2002-Section
3-Restrictions
on
running
coachingpetitioner
running
coaching
duly
registered-list of teachers not supplies in
registration form-petitioner's husband
teaching as ad-hoc teacher in local
college-submission that under section 2
K of U.P. Higher Education (Group-A)
Service Rules 1985-hence restriction by
D.I.O.S. Uncalled for-held-contract/adhoc teachers getting salary from public
exchequer-are within purview of Act-to
avoid
ambiguity-Govt.
To
issue
necessary notification to avoid defect the
very
purpose
of
the
Act-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-9 and 10

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.

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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,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.
3 All] Smt. Punam Singh V. State of U.P. and another

1505

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
1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

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
3 All] Smt. Punam Singh V. State of U.P. and another

1507
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.
---------
1508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51624 of 2012

Pramod Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Narendra Mohan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Transfer on complaint of MLA-being
public
representative
can
made
complaint-but genuineness of allegations
subject to enquiry-without adjudging
truthness of complaint-transfer-held not
proper
once
complaint
withdrawn-
presumption of false complaint transfer
order quashed.

Held: Para-5

In the instant case, the Authority has
transferred
the
petitioner
in
public
interest and has initiated an enquiry
which is not a correct procedure. A prima
facie case must be made out during a
preliminary enquiry before issuing the
transfer order, which in the instant case
has not been done. The Court also find
that the complaint has been withdrawn.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged his
transfer order dated 27.07.2012, by which
the petitioner was transferred from Mahoba
to Sonebhadra.

2. The contention of the petitioner is
that the transfer was made on the basis of a
complaint filed by the local MLA. It has
also been stated that the local MLA
subsequently
withdrew
his
complaint,
inspite of which, the petitioner has been
transferred in public interest. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
transfer order was not in public interest, but
was politically motivated.

3. Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit
reveals that based on a complaint made by
the local MLA, an enquiry was instituted
against the petitioner and, pending enquiry,
the petitioner has been transferred in public
interest. The Respondents further submits
that the enquiry is still pending, and even
though, the complaint has been withdrawn
by the MLA, it would not be in public
interest to transfer the petitioner back during
the pendency of the enquiry.

4. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, the Court is of the opinion
that the mere fact, a complaint has been
made by the MLA against the petitioner
does not by itself vitiates the transfer order.
It is the duty of the representative of the
people to express the grievances of the
people and place it before the Authority
concerned. However, merely because a
complaint has been made by an MLA does
not mean that the Authority would blindly
follow the said complaint and transfer the
incumbent. The complaint of the MLA is
required to be looked into, for which
purpose, a preliminary enquiry must be
held. The Authority must find out as to
whether there is any truth in the complaint
levelled by the MLA and only thereafter,
issue a transfer order either in public interest
or on administrative ground.

5. In the instant case, the Authority
has transferred the petitioner in public
interest and has initiated an enquiry which