5 min readJan 30, 2025 02:12 PM IST
First published on: Jan 30, 2025 at 06:59 AM IST
The provisions of the draft UGC Regulations 2025 pertaining to the appointment of vice-chancellors have been rightly criticised for diluting the autonomy of universities, the powers of states, and the principle of federalism. In floating this draft, the powers that be seem to have lost sight of important goals that need to be kept in mind while regulating higher education institutions (HEIs).
Certain reforms are needed to address systemic challenges. However, as a teacher at a central university, I wish to highlight the sweeping set of changes proposed by the draft regulations in the conditions for appointments and promotions of faculty. By laying down clear, transparent and stable criteria, regulations are meant to protect universities from political interference, ensure administrative accountability and uphold institutional autonomy. If they are adopted in their present form, the 2025 regulations will deliver a body blow to higher education in India.
The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) mandate does not extend to setting agendas for curricula. However, Clause 3.8 of the draft regulations indicates a realignment of academic focus towards specific ideological and market-driven objectives. They emphasise contributions in areas such as “Teaching-Learning and Research in Indian Knowledge Systems” and “Startups”. Clause 4.1 (iii) disqualifies assistant professors with over 10 years of experience from directly applying for professorships unless they serve as associate professors for at least three years.
This provision punishes assistant professors who currently qualify for professorships on the merit of their teaching and research contributions. It introduces an additional barrier for qualified candidates, and effectively penalises scholars for their contributions. Only 10 per cent of professors at Level 14 can be promoted to Level 15. This provision introduces an artificial quota and arbitrariness. It could create an unnecessary hierarchy among professors, and is bound to undermine collegiality and the morale of faculty.
The existing regulations require Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) applications to be processed within six months, with promotions backdated to the minimum eligibility date upon successful assessment. This ensures fairness and protects faculty from institutional delays. Clause 5.6, however, removes the backdating provision, allowing universities to delay promotions without accountability. This change unfairly penalises faculty. Administrative efficiencies can lead to career setbacks in terms of seniority, pay, and professional recognition.
The 2018 regulations excluded books and chapters as eligibility for promotions but required an equal number of journal publications from college and university teachers. The 2025 draft regulations reinstate the earlier criteria and exempt college teachers from publishing for promotions to Level 14. The UGC had pushed through the 2018 policy despite criticism. These rollbacks, along with the recent disbanding of the CARE list of academic journals, reflect an inconsistent and cavalier approach to scholarly publishing standards.
These erratic and frequent changes in criteria disrupt academic career plans and discourage long-term investment in teaching and research. Without surety of fair treatment, faculty will remain vulnerable to the whims of administrators, and the regulatory hurdles seem akin to punishment and a form of censorship. A regulatory body must embody the principles of fairness, certainty, foresight, and predictability.
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 proposed a significant upheaval in HEI regulation, including disbanding the UGC and replacing it with a Higher Education Commission of India (HECI).
The NEP espoused lofty goals, but these remain unrealised because of delays in enacting the necessary legislative and structural reforms. Meanwhile, the UGC continues to exercise authority, issuing new guidelines and implementing reforms for HEIs without the legislative framework to support such actions.
Regulations on recruitment, promotions, and service conditions of faculty in HEIs have historically been linked to pay structure revisions following the recommendations of Central Pay Commissions. Clause 1.3 of the 2025 draft regulations states, “These shall come into force from the date of notification. However, the date of implementation of the revision of pay shall be January 1, 2016.” The date of implementation mentioned here is that of the Seventh Pay Commission, revealing a sad case of copy-paste.
Why this urgency?
While there has been a long-standing demand to fill faculty vacancies in HEIs, recruitments in different universities are evoking a deep sense of disquiet among those who care for education as a driver of democracy and excellence in India. Similarly, frequent use of NFS (not found suitable), particularly in cases of SC, ST and OBC candidates, is causing severe damage to the idea of representation and affirmative action. I am pained to note that premier HEIs are being actively reduced to a pale shadow of their earlier selves. Campus cultures are becoming steeped in aggression and impunity.
It is an open secret that the current regime is making ideological appointments in HEIs and the complaints of a shortage of eligible candidates are misleading. The shortage is of candidates who are ideologically aligned with the regime and its affiliate groups. This is evident from the fact that small coteries of barely eligible persons are occupying multiple administrative positions in several HEIs and in some cases, individuals are even holding charge of multiple institutions. The goalposts shift every time the regime is done scraping the bottom of the barrel of candidates that it deems suitable. The 2025 draft regulation is another exercise in shifting goalposts. The least we can expect from the government is to evaluate the proposed draft regulations on constitutional parameters.
The writer is Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Rashtriya Janata Dal
In floating this draft, the powers that be seem to have lost sight of important goals that need to be kept in mind while regulating higher education institutions (Express Archives) 
Share
