4 min readMar 16, 2026 06:16 AM IST
First published on: Mar 16, 2026 at 06:16 AM IST
Faculty deficit is a major reason for the precarious state of public higher education in the country. According to a report of the parliamentary standing committee on education, released last year, 26 per cent of the sanctioned teaching posts are vacant in centrally funded institutions. The picture is murkier for state public universities, which face a faculty shortage of up to 40 per cent.
Even when recruitment is conducted, it often gets stalled in courts. The UGC has tried to lay down guidelines for recruitment beginning with its 2010 regulations. But they have been inadequate and have changed frequently. The performance-based appraisal system was complicated and became impractical when the number of applications went up. The UGC had to replace it in 2018 with another criterion, which has its own limitations. On the one hand, a simplified weightage-based academic score for shortlisting the candidates was introduced, and on the other, institutions were left free to decide the number of candidates to be called for an interview.
The minimum eligibility criteria often become the sole parameter of selection — it allows the appointment of a candidate with a fresh master’s degree and NET over a PhD holder on the basis of the performance in the interview. At its core, an interview is a subjective exercise and often prone to favouritism. Barring exceptions, it is common for the candidate to be interviewed for less than five minutes behind closed doors.
Compelled by judicial and public pressure, some states have reduced the weightage of the interview. But, efforts have not been made to frame a transparent selection process. This is evident in Haryana’s ongoing recruitment controversy. The Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) reportedly changed its objective-type test and interview-based criterion at the last minute to a subjective-type subject knowledge test (SKT) with an additional qualifying condition of 35 per cent marks, followed by an interview.
The argument that the UPSC’s civil examinations have a subjective test is not convincing. The civil services exam has a different mandate from that of a test to select assistant professors. An aspirant for the post of an assistant professor has passed subjective exams at the university level. It’s wrong to examine her again through subjective testing at a stage where objectivity must be ensured as far as possible. The UPSC has tried to overcome some of the limitations of a subjective test by clearly outlining the rubrics and diversifying the nature of questions. In contrast, the HPSC’s test comprised 15 essay-type questions to be attempted in three hours. Answering an essay-type question requires critical reflection. Expecting a candidate to write 15 essays in three hours is not an evaluation of subject knowledge or pedagogical skills — it’s a writing speed test.
When the exam’s results were declared in December 2025, it was clear that the evaluation was no less arbitrary. Against 613 advertised posts in English, only 151 candidates had qualified. The candidates who have not been selected have been left with very little recourse to know, let alone challenge, the yardstick applied in evaluation, except for approaching the court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the exam.
It is not a healthy sign that courts have to adjudicate educational recruitments. It is high time a robust and transparent procedure was put in place, and pending recruitments were fast-tracked.
The writer is assistant professor of English, Panjab University, Chandigarh
Even when recruitment is conducted, it often gets stalled in courts. The UGC has tried to lay down guidelines for recruitment. But they have been inadequate and have changed frequently 
Share
