RAMA KANT MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Lt Grade teacher in Badri Nath Tiwari Intermediate College, Meja Road, Allahabad. In the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he seeks quashing of the Notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh No. 3513/ 15-7-2 (2)/92 dated 1-7-1992. By the aforesaid Notification sections 63 and 64 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been amended and in their place new sections have been substituted, the restricted benefit/privilege of undertaking private tutions which was available to the teachers of recognised Institution has been withdrawn From the averments made in the writ petition there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner is serving in a recognised, aided Institution It has also not been stated that the petitioner has been undertaking private tution with the permission of the Head of the institution and because of the impugned Notification permission has been withdrawn or refused. And as such the petitioner is not an aggrieved person

(2.) WE have heard Sri Nageshwar Prasad Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the materials on the record, we think it proper to refer to the existing provisions of sections 63 and 64 as well as the amendment made by the impugned notification. Section 63 as it existed earlier is a section under the heading tution, part-time employment and other benefits which reads as under :-

(3.) THE other arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the amendment made in section 63 of the Statute through the notification is violotive of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, Article 19 (1) (g) guarantees right of freedom to the citizens of India to adopt my profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. THE undertaking of private tutions by the petitioner who has already adopted the profession of teaching and has been employed in the Institution cannot be termed as profession. THE petitioner has already adopted the profession of teaching and no restriction has been imposed to carry on his profession of teaching. THE undertaking of private tution was restricted privilege granted to the teachers which has been withdrawn and in our opinion, the said withdrawal does not violate Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India By the Impugned amendment, in our opinion, no such restriction has been imposed as the teachers serving in a recognised and aided institution do not have any fundamental right to undertake private tutions. THE undertaking of private tution was a kind of facility which was being extended to teachers of the recognised and aided institution in special cases which has been withdrawn by the impugned notification so even prior to the amendment there was no vested right of a teacher to undertake private tution, as It was wholly dependent on the permission so accorded by the Head of the institution and the committee of management as contained in sections 63 and 64.