Ethical Concerns Regarding Bureaucrats/Government Officials Teaching in Coaching Centres
It has come to light that there are many government officials involved in private sector, earning extra income by highlighting
themselves as the face of some coaching centres and some even lobbying why students should choose particular coaching institutes,
Published on Mar 6, 2025
By EMN
- It has come to light that there are many government
officials involved in private sector, earning extra income by highlighting
themselves as the face of some coaching centres and some even lobbying why
students should choose particular coaching institutes, while some run their own
coaching centres as side business or involve in part-time teaching, but why? Is
the government not paying them enough to make their ends meet; or they don’t
have any job to be performed in their respective departments; or they are so
good in managing their work; or they don’t perform their duties at all because
they are busy most of the time preparing topics to be taught; or busy with
their business, focusing on sales and marketing gimmicks? Is this ethical? When
it comes to their commitment for the nation-building through their service,
there are many questions to be answered. Why this practice should be checked
and stopped by the concern department or higher ups? Here are some reasons:
- Conflict of Interest
- Bureaucrats, especially those involved in government
recruitment, education policies, or public administration, might have access to
privileged information. If they teach at coaching centres, it could create
unfair advantages for some students, leading to ethical dilemmas such as:
- Insider Advantage: If a bureaucrat has insight about
examination trends, evaluation patterns, or recruitment policies, their
students might have an unfair edge over others.
- Influence on Exam Policies: If a bureaucrat has a say in
policymaking related to recruitment or exams, their teaching at a private
institution could compromise impartiality.
- Violation of Conduct Rules
- The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which
applies to IAS, IPS, and other government officers, prohibits government
servants from engaging in private employment or business without government
approval. Specifically, Rule 15 states that no government servant can engage in
any trade, business, or undertake additional employment without prior approval.
Teaching at coaching centres for monetary benefits can fall under this rule.
Rule 16 also restricts public servants from accepting fees or earning profits
from activities outside their official duties.
- Thus, unless they have special permission, bureaucrats
engaging in private coaching can be taken as a violation of these rules which
are applicable to state officials as well. Based on these rules, the government
of Nagaland has taken a major step to enforce these conduct rules strictly. For
instance, in August 2023, the government issued a directive giving in-service
doctors to cease practicing in private hospitals and clinics. This move was in
line with the Nagaland Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1968, emphasising the
prohibition of private practice without authorisation.
- Potential for Favoritism and Misuse of Authority
- Some bureaucrats might indirectly promote specific coaching
centres, creating an unfair business advantage, and this is happening at
present with many officers in the rank of EAC (engaging in such activities). If
coaching institutes highlight a bureaucrat’s name to attract students, it can
undermine the principle of equal opportunity in public exams.
- Impact on Public Service Ethics
- Bureaucrats are expected to be fully dedicated to their
official duties; engaging in private coaching could divert their focus from
governance.
- Public servants are paid salaries from taxpayers’ money, and
earning extra income through coaching might be seen as an ethical violation of
their service commitment.
- Exceptions and Alternative Perspectives
- If a bureaucrat is teaching in a non-commercial, voluntary,
or pro-bono manner (e.g., free online mentoring, government-run training
programmes), it may be considered ethical, and there are some bureaucrats who
take leave or resign from their services to legally engage in full-time
coaching or educational work.
- Conclusion
- While legally restricted, the ethical argument against
bureaucrats teaching at private coaching centres is stronger because it
compromises fairness, transparency, and public trust in governance. However, if
done within a permissible framework (such as government-approved training
programmes), it may be considered acceptable. Whereas government servants in
Nagaland are generally prohibited from engaging in private employment, including
teaching at coaching centres without prior approval. Such activities can lead
to conflicts of interest and in contravention of the established conduct rules.
It is essential for government employees to seek explicit permission before
undertaking any additional employment to ensure compliance with these
regulations.
- Longshithung Kikon
- longshikikon78@gmail.com
