3 min readBengaluruOct 22, 2024 05:27 PM IST
First published on: Oct 22, 2024 at 05:04 PM IST
Ahead of its syndicate meeting scheduled for Wednesday, Bangalore University finds itself at the centre of a controversy over the appointment of a professor in the zoology department under backlog recruitment following an order of the Karnataka High Court.
Five syndicate members have objected to the high court’s order directing the appointment of Dr H Krishnaram and urged the university to appeal against the single-bench decision. Krishnaram is a syndicate member of Bengaluru City University.
The dispute dates back to a recruitment notification issued by the university on March 21, 2018, to fill backlog posts. Dr B P Harini, who was already serving as an associate professor, had been selected for the position of professor in the zoology department under the backlog quota.
However, Krishnaram, another candidate for the same post, moved the court contending that the appointment was not made in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for SC/ST) Special Recruitment Rules 2001.
After a lengthy legal battle, the high court’s single bench ruled in favour of Krishnaram on July 25. The court gave the university eight weeks to comply with the order to appoint him. However, syndicate members raised strong objections during a meeting on September 20. They said the university’s selection committee had already deemed Krishnaram ineligible for the position as he lacked necessary qualifications such as experience as a PhD guide, adequate teaching experience, and postgraduate teaching experience. The syndicate on July 25, 2019, affirmed the committee’s findings and supported the appointment of Harini.
According to UGC guidelines, a candidate must have a minimum of 10 years of teaching experience in a university or college as an assistant professor or associate professor and/or research experience, along with a PhD degree in relevant discipline to be eligible for the professor position.
The five syndicate members, including Dr C Somashankar, Dr C Srinivas, and Dr Guruprasad, expressed their concern over the court’s decision in a September 23 letter addressed to the vice-chancellor, a copy of which is available with indianexpress.com.
They argued that the court has a limited scope in judicial reviews of such appointments, emphasising that the selection committee, composed of experts, is the appropriate body to determine a candidate’s eligibility.
The members urged the university to appeal against the court decision before a division bench of the high court. They maintained that the selection committee’s initial rejection of Krishnaram’s candidacy should be upheld and that further legal action is necessary to resolve the issue.
“Dr Krishnaram’s experience certificates show that he worked as a vice-principal teaching environmental studies and also as a principal without any teaching experience. Based on these, he was not even kept in the waiting list, during the proceedings of the Board of Appointment. If the university complies with the high court ruling, it will be setting a bad precedent, eventually encouraging other ineligible candidates to do the same. Therefore, we urge the university to challenge the high court ruling in this case,” said a professor.
The higher education system in India has been a den of caste-based hierarchies and systemic exclusion. 
Share
