Govt. teachers resorting to private tuition, business due to greed for money: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently took strong exception to the growing practice of government teachers taking up part time employment by way of tuition classes or other businesses [K. Radha v The Chief Educational Officer]..Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that this practice is spreading like cancer as teachers have developed greed for money and the same amounts to misconduct."These part-time employment out of tuition classes and business amongst the teachers are spreading like cancer as they develop greediness for the purpose of earning more money. In the event of allowing such misconducts, undoubtedly, the government cannot expect better performance of the duties and devotion to duty from the teachers," the Court said. Such misconduct has to be viewed seriously in the interest of students and the education system, the Court added..Thus, the Court suo moto impleaded the Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department and the Commissioner of School Education in order to ensure implementation of the directions by the Court, passed to check misconduct by teachers..The High Court while hearing a plea by a government teacher seeking a transfer within a 30-kilometre (km) radius of her spouse who was also a government teacher. The petitioner had challenged an order rejecting this request stating that the decision was against a government order which laid down that spouse-employed cases are to be considered for transfer within the radius of 30 kms.The government advocate informed the Court that the distance between the spouses places of work was actually only 18 kms as per satellite map and thus, the request was rejected..The single-judge on hearing the parties disapproved of the practice of public servants claiming transfer as a matter of right. The judge stated that the GO only provides priority and does not confer a right.“Mere preference or priority granted in certain guidelines cannot be construed as a right or violation of such instructions/guidelines providing concession would not provide a cause for filing a writ petition,” the Court said..The judge further stated that the day-to-day administration of the government vests with the executive and Courts were not expected to interfere with such administration. It emphasised that a court can only interfere if an order of transfer was passed without jurisdiction or allegations of mala fide were raised.“The scope of interference is undoubtedly limited and in the event of frequent interference by the Constitutional Courts in the matter of administrative transfer, the executives may not be in a position to run the administration in a smooth manner,” the High Court said..The Court went on to note that students coming out of government schools were not at par with their counterparts from private schools, and sought a review of the teachers' responsibilities and scrutinize the reasons for their slackness.“Unfortunately, what is prevailing in our society is that these teachers are largely indulging in taking private tuition classes, doing business or part-time employment etc,” Justice Subramaniam then pointed out He highlighted that the same was in violation of conduct rules which unambiguously stipulate that private trade, employment, part-time employment etc., were impermissible and amounted to misconduct..He said that the time had come for the Court to emphasise on teachers’ duties as opposed to their rights.“When a teacher claims a right, equally the performance of duties is to be emphasised. But, the trend is that the duties are not considered as important," the order said..With this, the Court rejected the relief sought in the petition. It then directed the State to investigate and act against teachers taking private tuition classes.Further, the State was directed to provide phone numbers which could be used to lodge complaints against misconduct by teachers inside and outside school. Teachers’ periodic work assessment was also ordered.A direction was also issued to frame guidelines to monitor the conduct of teachers.The respondents were asked to file a compliance report within four weeks and the case was listed on April 4..Advocate Vadivel S appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by government advocate N Ga Nataraj..[Read Order]