Court Bans pvt practice by Doctors and Govt teachers

DB bans pvt practice by docs, tuition by Govt teachers

Division Bench of J&K High Court today ordered complete ban on private practice of doctors and teachers.

In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Division Bench of J&K High Court Jammu Wing, comprising Chief Justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla and Justice Virender Singh, set-aside part of the instructions contained in circular number EDU-PS-C-S-11-05 dated August 11, 2005. The circular grants general permission to the officials of the Education department and Medical department to engage themselves by way of self-employment or accepting part-time employment in private coaching centres, two hours before the opening of school and two hours after closing of the schools, as also private practice by the doctors.

The PIL filed by Vichar Kranti International and Others sought complete ban on private tutoring by the government teachers both ‘Gazetted and Non-Gazetted cadres’ and ban on private practice by government doctors including those working in the Medical Colleges. The PIL also sought quashment of Circular number EDU-PS-C-S-11-05 dated August 11, 2005.

The judgment written by Chief Justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla for the Division Bench observed that counsel for the petitioner pointed out that under rules 10 of J&K Government employees (conduct rules) 1971, there is a general prohibition that any government employee, whether on leave or in active service, cannot undertake any trade or business or any other employment without previous sanction of the government.

Under the circular, general authorisation has been provided to encourage the officials of the Education department to grant permission to the teachers to indulge in any private tuition two hours before the opening of schools and two hours after schools get closed. The petition stated that this runs contrary to the Rule 10.

When the Division Bench examined Rule 10 of J&K Government Employees Conduct Rules 1971, it observed that the said rules specifically prohibit a government employee to undertake any employment by encouraging private tuitions. The teachers would be otherwise engaging themselves in one of the other form of self employment for earning more money. Therefore, if such a practice is allowed to continue, certainly, there would be serious deterioration in maintaining the standard of education in the government schools, the petition said.

“In other words, if a teacher is interested in private tuition for the purpose of earning more money, it is needless to state that he would only result in total disinclination to concentrate in imparting education in the regular working hours, in the schools, to the students and thereby standard of education in the schools will be seriously affected,” the petition pointed out.

It further elaborated, “the provisions contained in circular August 11, 2005 to the effect that it would be permissible for the Education department to grant permission for the teachers to accept such type of engagements in private coaching centers or start their own private tuition centers, two hours prior to the opening of the schools and two hours after closing of the schools, would be indirect conflict with the specific provisions contained in Rule 10. The Provisions contained in Rule 10, does not enable the state government to such a general instructions to the officials of the Education department for granting such permissions, which would not be in the interest of the students studying in the government schools.”

Division Bench observed that proper interpretation of Rules 10 would only be that in exceptional cases, where the government is of the view that engagement of any trade or business or undertaking of any other employment of a government servant, either on leave or in active service, would be required in the interest of public at large. Such a permission by way of previous sanction can be granted by considering such individual cases, depending upon such exigency and other relevant factors.

The court reasoned that the contention of the counsel for the PIL that grant of such general authorisation to the government officials would not be in the interest of the public at large and in particular the student community and would result in total deterioration of the standard of the education in government schools.

While holding that it is for the state government to apply Rule 10 in appropriate case depending upon the exigency of the work for granting previous sanction, the court directed a blanket ban on private practice by both doctors and teachers. Particularly in the case of teachers, the high court observed that the General Blanket Authority, which the circular dated August 11, 2005 extends to the officials of the education department cannot be sustained to that extent and so the said circular stands set-aside.