Policy barring private coaching legal: HC

In a landmark verdict, the High Court (HC) yesterday declared valid a government policy that bars teachers of both government and private educational institutions from getting involved in coaching business. Lawyers opined that no teacher can be directly involved in any coaching centre operating commercially following the HC verdict. After disposing of five separate writ petitions, an HC bench, comprising Justice Sheikh Hassan Arif and Justice Razik-Al-Jalil, came up with the verdict and made some observations over coaching business and drives of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) against individual teachers.

In an observation, the HC said each and every institution is suffering from massive corruption by their staff. The ACC should draw up a priority list in conducting the drive against corruption. The ACC should investigate important issues by making a priority list, the HC said.

It should pay more attention to eradicating corruption from customs, port, land, bank and other offices of the country.

In the verdict, the HC bench expressed anxiety over the ACC conducting investigation against teachers. It said there are a number of godfathers in the financial sector involved in swindling crores of taka from banks.

“Thousand of crores have been swindled from banks. But the ACC is busy

with teachers,” the HC

bench said.

The ACC should be more careful about big corruption before taking steps against small corruption. If it is able to eradicate big corruption, all other corruption will go automatically, the HC bench observed.

The ACC can investigate and recommend that action be taken against government school and college teachers as it has the jurisdiction to conduct such inquiry. But the commission does not have the jurisdiction to conduct investigation and take action against private school and college teachers, the HC

bench observed. The government can issue circular, order and rule several times for separate needs. But it cannot curtail individual fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the HC bench said.

The HC bench delivered the landmark verdict after disposing of five writ petitions of teachers of government and non-educational institutions, challenging the legality of the ministry’s guidelines issued in June 2012 banning coaching business by teachers.

The government announced a policy titled “Policy-2012” to stop teachers from doing coaching business in educational institutes on June 20, 2012.

As per the policy, a teacher can teach a maximum of 10 students of other institutions a day with prior permission from the head of the institution. For doing so, the teacher will have to notify his/her school head.

The policy also prevented teachers from doing private tuition during school hours.

Earlier, some teachers moved the HC, filing separate writ petitions challenging the legality of the government policy banning teachers from running coaching business. In response to the petitions, the HC bench had on February 28 last year stayed the effectiveness of the policy for four months and issued a rule asking the government why the policy should not be declared illegal.

After that, the government and the ACC filed leave-to-appeal petitions before the Appellate Division against the HC order.

After hearing the petition, the Appellate Division on February 27 last year directed the HC to dispose of the rules issued over the coaching business by July 31, 2018.

The HC bench appointed two former attorney generals, Hassan Arif and Fida M Kamal, as the amicus curiae to assist the court in disposing of the rule over the matter. After a long hearing on the rules, the HC bench on January 27 this year fixed February 7 for delivering its verdict on the petitions.

No teacher can run coaching centres outside the educational institutions following the High Court verdict, deputy attorney general Mokhlesur Rahman said.

He also said that a teacher can do private tuition maintaining all terms and condition set up in the policy following the verdict.

Advocate Khurshid Alam Khan represented the ACC, while barrister Tania Amir appeared for the petitioners during the hearing on the petitions.

Policy barring private coaching legal: HC

In a landmark verdict, the High Court (HC) yesterday declared valid a government policy that bars teachers of both government and private educational institutions from getting involved in coaching business. Lawyers opined that no teacher can be directly involved in any coaching centre operating commercially following the HC verdict. After disposing of five separate writ petitions, an HC bench, comprising Justice Sheikh Hassan Arif and Justice Razik-Al-Jalil, came up with the verdict and made some observations over coaching business and drives of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) against individual teachers. In an observation, the HC said each and every institution is suffering from massive corruption by their staff. The ACC should draw up a priority list in conducting the drive against corruption. The ACC should investigate important issues by making a priority list, the HC said. It should pay more attention to eradicating corruption from customs, port, land, bank and other offices of the country. In the verdict, the HC bench expressed anxiety over the ACC conducting investigation against teachers. It said there are a number of godfathers in the financial sector involved in swindling crores of taka from banks. Thousand of crores have been swindled from banks. But the ACC is busy with teachers, the HC bench said. The ACC should be more careful about big corruption before taking steps against small corruption. If it is able to eradicate big corruption, all other corruption will go automatically, the HC bench observed. The ACC can investigate and recommend that action be taken against government school and college teachers as it has the jurisdiction to conduct such inquiry. But the commission does not have the jurisdiction to conduct investigation and take action against private school and college teachers, the HC bench observed. The government can issue circular, order and rule several times for separate needs. But it cannot curtail individual fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the HC bench said. The HC bench delivered the landmark verdict after disposing of five writ petitions of teachers of government and non-educational institutions, challenging the legality of the ministrys guidelines issued in June 2012 banning coaching business by teachers. The government announced a policy titled Policy-2012 to stop teachers from doing coaching business in educational institutes on June 20, 2012. As per the policy, a teacher can teach a maximum of 10 students of other institutions a day with prior permission from the head of the institution. For doing so, the teacher will have to notify his/her school head. The policy also prevented teachers from doing private tuition during school hours. Earlier, some teachers moved the HC, filing separate writ petitions challenging the legality of the government policy banning teachers from running coaching business. In response to the petitions, the HC bench had on February 28 last year stayed the effectiveness of the policy for four months and issued a rule asking the government why the policy should not be declared illegal. After that, the government and the ACC filed leave-to-appeal petitions before the Appellate Division against the HC order. After hearing the petition, the Appellate Division on February 27 last year directed the HC to dispose of the rules issued over the coaching business by July 31, 2018. The HC bench appointed two former attorney generals, Hassan Arif and Fida M Kamal, as the amicus curiae to assist the court in disposing of the rule over the matter. After a long hearing on the rules, the HC bench on January 27 this year fixed February 7 for delivering its verdict on the petitions. No teacher can run coaching centres outside the educational institutions following the High Court verdict, deputy attorney general Mokhlesur Rahman said. He also said that a teacher can do private tuition maintaining all terms and condition set up in the policy following the verdict. Advocate Khurshid Alam Khan represented the ACC, while barrister Tania Amir appeared for the petitioners during the hearing on the petitions.