Kerala University faculty member's promotion: Syndicate defends body's decision
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A section of Syndicate members of Kerala University has defended the varsity body's decision to recommend promotion of assistant professor S Naseeb, also a pro-Left Syndicate member, to the post of associate professor.
The decision was annulled by Governor Rajendra Arlekar in his capacity as Chancellor on Monday on the grounds that it was against UGC regulations. In a joint statement, 14 Syndicate members, most of them Left-affiliated, said the university has implemented the UGC regulation that valid contract service can also be considered for promotion.
They said it was on directives of the Kerala High Court that Naseeb was permitted to apply for promotion. Besides, the Syndicate had also sought legal opinion on the matter before taking a decision.
'The Syndicate had only decided to inform the High Court that Naseeb's application for promotion can be considered based on earlier court orders on the matter and also on the basis of the report of the academic committee,' the Syndicate members said. However, the Vice-Chancellor unilaterally referred the matter to the Chancellor (governor), they alleged.
In his order, the governor said it was found that Naseeb had included his tenure of more than a year as lecturer on temporary basis to his overall service period while applying for promotion.
However, he was drawing remuneration lesser than a regularly appointed faculty at that time. According to the governor, this constituted a violation of UGC regulations.
The governor reminded the Syndicate that it is bound to follow the norms fixed by the UGC and no power is vested with it to exempt or exclude such norms. Arlekar said he was annulling the Syndicate's decision by invoking the powers vested in him under Section 7(3) of the Kerala University Act.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
HP High Court Raps HPU for withholding Associate Professor's Salary
Shimla, Jun 21 (UNI) The Himachal Pradesh High Court has pulled up Himachal Pradesh University (HPU) for withholding the salary of an Associate Professor for over two years, despite his promotion under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Justice Sandeep Sharma, while allowing a civil writ petition filed by Dr. Bhawani Singh, directed HPU to release the pending salary within six weeks. Dr. Singh, appointed as an Assistant Professor in 2016 in the Department of Hindi, was promoted to Associate Professor on September 9, 2022, under UGC norms. The promotion was approved by the university's Executive Council through an office order dated July 4, 2023. However, HPU withheld the salary, citing lack of approval from the state government. The court noted that Dr. Singh was working in the higher post but denied its pay scale. 'The petitioner, who admittedly at present is working against the higher post, is being denied salary of the higher post,' the order stated, terming the university's conduct as 'bad in law' and 'unjustified.' HPU's repeated attempts to seek approval from the Finance Department were blocked, as the department claimed that the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme ceased with the introduction of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022. However, the court rejected this reasoning, asserting that UGC regulations, having statutory force, must prevail over state policies in such matters. Citing Supreme Court rulings in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Prof. (Dr.) Sreejith P.S v. Dr. Rajshree M.S, the court emphasized that UGC norms are binding on state universities. 'UGC Regulations should become part of the statute framed by Parliament and, therefore, shall prevail,' Justice Sharma said. The court ruled that state government approval was not a precondition for releasing the salary. Failure to comply with the order within six weeks will entitle Dr. Singh to interest at 6% per annum on the delayed payment. Senior Advocate Sanjeev Bhushan, assisted by L.S. Mehta, represented the petitioner, while Advocate General Anup Rattan and his team appeared for the state and HPU. UNI ML RKM
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
A critical look at UGC's recent regulations for Ph.D. guides, in the light of NEP 2020
Academic research in India is once again at a pivotal crossroads. In a recent directive, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has stipulated that research supervisors for Ph.D. candidates must belong to institutions with recognised postgraduate research centres. This move, intended to ensure quality control and institutional accountability, comes at a time when the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is advocating the democratisation and decentralisation of research — starting right from undergraduate programmes. The apparent contradiction between these two directions raises fundamental questions about the future of research in India. Quality vs. accessibility On the surface, the UGC's intention seems well-founded. Research is a rigorous activity demanding access to institutional infrastructure, peer support, and ethical oversight. Restricting supervisors to PG research centres ensures that minimum academic standards are upheld. However, this measure inadvertently sidelines a vast cohort of capable researchers and teachers from UG colleges, who may possess strong academic credentials, extensive research experience, and proven track records but are now deemed ineligible solely due to institutional affiliation. The policy runs the risk of converting what should be an intellectually inclusive process into an exclusive club, centred around a few institutions with 'recognised' status. Is research potential a property of an institution or an individual? Individual merit This brings us to a crucial philosophical and pedagogical question: Should research supervision be institution-centric or individual-centric? There are several instances where professors in non-research PG colleges have published in high-impact journals, received fellowships, and mentored scholars informally with great success. By denying these individuals the ability to formally guide Ph.D. students, the system fails to recognise merit and performance outside bureaucratic boundaries. Ironically, NEP 2020 emphasises promoting research from the undergraduate level, allowing students to engage in high-level inquiry and innovation as early as the fourth year. How, then, do we reconcile this vision with a restrictive policy that limits who can guide future researchers? Repercussions The implications of this policy could be far-reaching. First, it may lead to overcrowding of researchers under a few supervisors in PG research centres, reducing the quality of mentorship. Second, it may demoralise qualified teachers in UG institutions who are eager to contribute to national knowledge production. Third, it creates a two-tiered system; those who are 'research-worthy' and those who are not, based not on talent but institutional status. Additionally, the assumption that only PG centres have the necessary infrastructure is increasingly outdated in the digital age. With open-access journals, virtual laboratories, collaborative tools, and global research networks, much of the academic work today transcends physical campuses. Need for balance A more nuanced framework is urgently needed: one that upholds academic quality while actively nurturing individual research talent. To begin with, merit-based accreditation should be introduced, allowing experienced faculty from non-PG research centres to independently apply to be Ph.D. guides based on academic credentials, such as publication records, citation indices, or leadership in funded research projects. In place of blanket bans on entire categories of institutions, regular institutional audits should be conducted to assess and certify research readiness in undergraduate colleges, ensuring that deserving institutions are not unfairly excluded. Additionally, collaborative mentorship models could be adopted, allowing for joint supervision where a researcher has a primary guide from a UG institution and a co-guide from a PG research centre, thereby encouraging mentorship diversity and inter-institutional learning. Policies must also be realigned with the NEP 2020's research-first vision, which calls for building research mentorship capacity across the academic spectrum — including UG colleges — instead of restricting it. Finally, investment in digital infrastructure is essential, enabling equitable access to research databases, tools, and collaborative platforms for all accredited institutions, thereby decentralising research power and making knowledge creation more inclusive. Research is not the privilege of a few but the responsibility of all in the academic ecosystem. UGC's commitment to quality is laudable, but it must not come at the cost of inclusivity and innovation. As India moves towards becoming a global knowledge hub, it is essential to ensure that the structures we build empower every capable mind, not just the ones housed in designated research centres. The strength of a nation's research culture lies not in institutional labels but in the intellectual spirit it chooses to nurture. The writer is a Professor and Head of the Department of English, M. J. College, Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Appointment process begins for new VC at Gurukul Kangri Univ amid ongoing legal issues
Haridwar: Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be) University in Haridwar is set to appoint its new vice-chancellor – two months after the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (APS) units of Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi appointed its chancellor – settling a long-standing controversy over the appointment of the top two university functionaries. However, authorities said legal proceedings in the matter are still ongoing. APS Delhi secretary, Vinay Arya said that the appointment of the VC will be made under University Grants Commission (UGC) rules, with the university's board of management (BoM) initiating the process. Notably, the authority to appoint the university's chancellor and VC was restored to the APS bodies on May 21, after previously being restricted under UGC Regulations 2023. A letter from the Union education ministry dated March 3 this year allowed the university to continue with its existing memorandum of association (MoA) under the UGC Regulations 2019, while exempting it — for now — from the UGC Regulations 2023. The university is required to sign a revised MoU with the ministry, UGC, and itself. Crucially, the exemption is conditional. If the university fails to meet the requirements by FY 2027–28 — which includes the creation and maintenance of a corpus fund by the sponsoring bodies — it will be required to fully adopt the 2023 regulations. A senior university official said that this condition is yet to be met by the sponsoring bodies, which could impact the university's compliance status in the future. In another condition laid down in the ministry's letter, it was stated that the university must present duly audited books of account indicating that its total receipts and expenses are more than twice the govt grants received. While the sponsoring bodies are confident of achieving it by the deadline, the university staff's optimism rests on their failure to do so. "They will not under any circumstance be able to raise their contribution to the level and must necessarily adopt the 2023 regulations," said Rajaneesh Bhardwaj, president of the university non-teaching staff union. "Adoption of the regulations will pave the way for the appointment of both the chancellor and VC by the govt. This will be in the best interest of the university," he added. A university official, on account of anonymity, took exception to the MoA drafted by the sponsoring bodies. "According to the draft, the ownership of Gurukul Kangri will vest with the sponsoring body. Secondly, it creates a society which will be above the BoM. These provisions are clearly against the 2019 regulations," he said. The university's officiating VC Hemalatha K said she would not like to comment as the matter was still sub judice. "All that I can say is that the matter should be decided in the best interest of the university."
