- (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. 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.;