.
Delhi University is facing a crisis on the issue of appointments of teachers as till a year ago the issue was not even seen to be on the priority that it deserved, for almost a decade. It was neither given due attention by the University nor by the Delhi University Teachers' Association (DUTA) that has been led mostly by communist Presidents during this period. And surprisingly, this has happened despite the fact that barring a short period of ban from March 2018 to March 2019 (as a result of a court verdict) there were no government orders against making appointments. In 2016 December, Delhi University had to make a promise to Delhi High Court that it would complete the task of making all 3500+ appointments by July 2017. It failed to do that. And despite proactive steps taken by UGC/HRD in notifying a time-schedule in May-June 2019 asking the university to follow it and make all appointments in six months, Delhi University is yet to take off. However, the issue of appointment of teachers in Delhi University is not as simple as it might appear and it needs to be studied in some detail and that is being attempted here.
Present Status
Let us first estimate the present size of the problem which is the main parameter which indicates that this particular concern of Delhi University must be given the highest priority. On an average 300 teachers retire each year from Delhi University. From 2007 there have hardly been any significant drive for permanent appointments. Therefore, in thirteen years around 3900 vacancies must have got created due to retirement of teachers by now. The University was sanctioned around 2000 posts under the first tranche of OBC expansion in 2009. The total vacancies contributed by these factors would add up to 5900. Out of which around 1400 appointments were made and therefore about 4500 posts must be still lying vacant out of these. 2000 additional posts that were due since 2010 under second tranche of OBC (Other Backward Castes) expansion were sanctioned by the UGC last year in 2019. This makes the total vacancies in 2019 as 6500. This year, apart from the 300 posts that will get created due to retirement, University is also expecting around 2000 posts under EWS (Economically Weaker Section) expansion scheme. These factors would make the number reach 8800 approximately. These figures are displayed below in a self-explained tabular format.
Posts created/filled up in the year
|
Posts due to retirement of teachers
|
OBC Expansion posts
|
Appointments made
|
Cumulative posts
|
2007
|
300
|
300
|
||
2008
|
300
|
600
|
||
2009
|
300
|
2000 (1st tranche)
|
2900
|
|
2010
|
300
|
500
|
2700
|
|
2011
|
300
|
3000
|
||
2012
|
300
|
3300
|
||
2013
|
300
|
3600
|
||
2014
|
300
|
3900
|
||
2015
|
300
|
500
|
3700
|
|
2016
|
300
|
400
|
3600
|
|
2017
|
300
|
3900
|
||
2018
|
300
|
4200
|
||
2019
|
300
|
2000 (2nd tranche)
|
6500
|
|
2020
|
300*
|
2000* (EWS
expansion)
|
8800*
|
(This table illustrates rough estimates that reasonably matches with the existing/expected reality)
*These posts were expected to get created this year.
An explosive situation
Right now, around 5000 teachers must have been working as permanent teachers. Rest around the same number are working as Adhoc teachers. These teachers have been working under extreme uncertainty as they are appointed only for four months at a stretch and are continued again after a day's break. After the sanction of posts due to EWS expansions therefore, the strength of permanent teachers will get reduced to around 40 percent. Any education institution would not be able to perform to its potential if 60 percent of their staff are working under uncertainty. In the past several UGC Regulations, it is clearly mentioned that not more than 10 percent strength should be working on such uncertain service conditions. There is an urgent need to address this problem as it has been allowed to get accumulated to such alarming level primarily due to overlooking of the problem by the authorities. Any further lapse may only make the situation more explosive and beyond repair.
Reason for not holding interviews
Following major reasons can be traced for not holding interviews.
- Due to continuous experimentation with the course structure moving from annual to semester in 2009-10 and then to FYUP in 2011-12, back to semester in 2015 and then CBCS in 2017, there was an uncertainty about the permanent requirement of some of these vacancies.
- Adhoc teachers were considered to be useful (exploitable) for executing swift changes in the course structures as seen during the initial phase of this period.
- Authorities have apparently avoided making appointments fearing it difficult to handle because of its huge number, at least since 2016.
- UGC directing the university against making appointments between March 2018 to March 2019 to avoid frequent changes in the appointment roster from 200 point department wise roster to 13 point institution wise roster and back again to 200-point roster.
- Convenience in making adhoc appointments that has remained in practice for the last more than forty years.
- Selection committees in pre-2005 era had an edge for the college authorities in making decisions and this was reversed in 2005 in favour of the University teachers by making a decisive change in the constitution of selection committees. An EC resolution gave similar deciding edge to the college authorities for adhoc appointments. Colleges, since then started avoiding holding interviews for permanent posts and preferred adhoc appointments.
Is it possible to fill posts through the existing process of appointments
In response to the advertisements to fill up these posts last year, colleges have received applications in huge numbers. There are on an average around 1500 to 2000 applicants for each department of a college and typically, a college has 10-12 departments in DU. A college that has 12 departments where interviews need to be conducted, would require to hold twelve selection committees that on an average would conduct interviews for 50-60 days. In all of these, presence of Principal and Chairman would be required. Theoretically, this might appear to be possible but it is difficult for any institution to postpone all other activities for holding selection committees. Then a department in the University that would be required to send experts in all the colleges where selection committees will be held in their subject, will also feel the pressure to perform. This is because there are departments whose courses run in more than 30-40 colleges. To manage such a schedule will never be an easy task. The departments will also have to ensure that no two dates in different colleges clash in this schedule as it would deny the candidates their fair opportunity to appear in both the interviews.
Without getting into the complex details given above, we can try to arrive at a fair estimate using our earlier experiences and attempts. During 2015-16, in approximately more than a year the university was able to conduct interviews to fill up around 8-900 posts. That was a decent drive carried out for a short time when the university had put the appointment drive on its highest priority and therefore, we should not expect to cross on an average 7-800 selections in an year even now. Since there are 300 posts getting additionally vacated due to retirement, one can only target to reduce the number of vacancies by approximately 500 posts (i.e. by making appointments at a challenging rate of 800 per year) in a year. To fill up the 6500 posts therefore (including OBC second tranche but excluding EWS expansion posts), it would take another 13 long years, assuming no adverse developments spring up to stop this exercise during this long period of time. If EWS posts are also added, it would take around fifteen years.
As a matter of fact, it is enough to know that to fill up just 126 posts in the Faculty of Law, interviews were held for more than three months in 2017 that began on July 24 and ended on September 29. And appointment letters to the selected candidates were issued only after the list was approved on January 27 2018. It was just ridiculous that the University had to accept in Delhi High Court in December 2016 that it would complete the process of making appointments in seven months by July 2017. Such a target was simply impossible to achieve under the prevailing scheme of making these appointments. If only the number is somehow (Absorption is just one of those ways) reduced by at least half, the process cannot be completed in five-six years of time. And for this also, university will have to keep appointments on its highest priority.
