5 min readFeb 25, 2025 10:35 PM IST
First published on: Feb 25, 2025 at 10:34 PM IST
The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Cell of Bangalore University on Tuesday strongly opposed the University Grants Commission’s draft regulations, expressing concerns that several proposed changes could undermine academic standards, create administrative confusion, and erode state autonomy in higher education governance.
Presenting challenges and objections to the proposed regulations at an event held in the university, Prof T D Kemparaju, a former vice-chancellor of Bangalore North University, Kolar, said, “Academic policies should prioritise teaching quality, research integrity, and institutional autonomy. The proposed centralisation of appointment of vice-chancellors and allowing industrialists to be appointed as vice- chancellors will hinder state autonomy and pave the way for commercialisation of education.” The proposed guidelines are now open for public feedback until February 28.
This comes weeks after six states—Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Karnataka—passed a joint resolution seeking the withdrawal of the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025.
It was passed at a conclave of state higher education ministers in Bengaluru on February 5.
Multiplicity of regulations
One of the primary concerns expressed at Tuesday’s event is the potential confusion that may arise from multiple regulations governing academic institutions. It was suggested that the implementation of UGC Regulations 2025 be deferred until after the 2026 pay revision to avoid overlapping policies and administrative complications.
Lack of pay band details
Kemparaju pointed out that the draft regulations fail to specify the pay bands for various academic positions despite setting implementation timelines for new pay scales. He recommended that regulations explicitly include pay bands to ensure clarity in faculty recruitment and promotion policies.
New academic designations
The introduction of two new designations—additional librarian and additional director of physical education and sports—has drawn criticism from Bangalore University professors. They argue that these titles create a disparity between colleges and universities and therefore the new designations should be dropped.
External subject expert criteria
The draft regulations require external subject experts for selection committees to be at academic level 14 or above. Kemparaju warned that this could lead to a shortage of eligible experts, particularly in states where faculty promotions are delayed. “The eligibility criteria should be relaxed to allow external experts at least one level above the candidate or, if necessary, at the same academic level,” he said.
Eligibility criteria for assistant professors
A major point of contention is the clause stating that if a candidate’s PhD is in a different discipline from their postgraduate degree, only the PhD subject will be considered for appointment. This undermines the significance of postgraduate education, which involves rigorous study over five years. It was suggested that the UGC 2018 regulations should be retained, allowing universities to determine the relevance of a PhD subject with the help of experts.
Mandatory PhD for promotions
The draft regulations make a PhD mandatory for promotions to higher academic levels, including assistant professor (level 12), associate professor (level 13A), and professor (level 14). It was argued that this requirement is unjust for faculty members who enter the system with qualifications like NET/SLET/SET. It was recommended that the PhD requirement for level 12 promotions be removed, considering the primary focus of college faculty is on teaching.
Direct recruitment
The draft mandates a minimum of eight years of combined teaching and research experience for associate professors. It was suggested that this be modified to explicitly include “teaching and research experience” rather than just “teaching and/or research” to ensure the selection of well-rounded faculty members.
Appointment of vice-chancellors
One of the most contentious and controversial issues is the provision allowing people from industries, public administration, and public sector undertakings to be appointed as vice-chancellors. It was said this could commercialise universities and weaken academic integrity.
Additionally, it was argued that the proposed changes diminish the role of state governments in vice-chancellor appointments, contradicting India’s federal structure. State governments bear significant financial and administrative responsibilities for universities, and their exclusion from the appointment process undermines their authority.
It was recommended that the selection process for vice-chancellors should be the same as the existing rules, with a search-cum-selection committee appointed by the state government. As per the existing rule in Karnataka, the governor appoints a vice-chancellor to a university in concurrence with the state government.
The draft regulations require external subject experts for selection committees to be at academic level 14 or above. (Express File) 
Share
