JNUTA statement on CAS promotions: No selective review or referral, no retrospective application!

The General Body Meeting of the JNUTA had entrusted the responsibility of framing the JNUTA response to the vexed issue of the counting of past service for CAS promotions to a Committee comprising of Prof. Ravi Srivastava, Prof. Sonajharia Minz and Prof. Surajit Mazumdar. The Committee has met with the colleagues targeted and studied the relevant documents, and has submitted the following.

The JNUTA Committee notes that the Statute and Academic Ordinances relating to Counting of Past Services were amended in the light of the UGC Regulations 2010 after extensive deliberation. Further, the University has been implementing these Amended Statute and Ordinances since 2012.

In order to facilitate implementation, wherever it was considered necessary to consider and assess details, the University has formed a committee from time to time to verify and make recommendations regarding addition of specific past services of a teacher. It has also been implementing the recommendations of such Committees. In case individual teachers have grievances against these recommendations, they can represent to the Committee or the University Administration.

The University set up a Committee under Prof. S. K. Goswami on July 5, 2016 / August 5, 2016, to consider the counting of past services of teachers, and look into the ramifications of the MHRD letter dated March 3, 2016. It is strange that the committee has been asked to review eighteen cases in which specific recommendations had already been made by its predecessor committee which had been approved by the Executive Council. The decision is unprecedented and unacceptable. The Goswami Committee should only have been asked to consider fresh matters, or matters relating to grievances made by teachers against earlier recommendations. The MHRD letter of March 3 is a routine letter and does not add anything to the issue of financial accountability which the university is required to maintain. There is no justification for the University to selectively review the decisions of its own committee, thereby discriminating against a group of teachers, who for no fault of theirs could not be interviewed earlier, thereby further stalling their promotion under CAS.

There is also no justification to send specific cases to UGC for clarification, since the University is an autonomous body and is governed by its Acts, Statutes, and Ordinances. Further, in view of the fact, that the Statutes and Ordinances were amended in the light of the UGC Regulations 2010, the decision of the University EC (6.3) is completely redundant.

The JNUTA committee takes particular note of one case in which the appointment of a teacher who was promoted under CAS after due consideration of iipast services by the University, was apparently questioned in the University’s audit report. The case of the teacher concerned had been processed in accordance with the existing rules applicable to all and without any special consideration being shown – as such there was no irregularity. Instead of replying to the audit observation in an appropriate manner, however, the University chose to send a recovery notice to the teacher concerned. The teacher concerned had served on the EC as a teacher representative and had raised questions regarding the process of appointment of some members of the university administration. The manner in which the promotion was selectively pursued by the administration suggests that the university administration has taken a vindictive attitude. JNUTA rejects the manner in which the University has dealt with the issue, including the reference of the issue to the UGC (vide decision 6.3 of the 268th EC.

The Committee is of the firm view that the university should hold selection committees expeditiously and give an opportunity to all teachers whose CAS related cases of promotion are pending and whose cases of past service had been already dealt with as per already well established procedure to appear before it at the earliest and without discrimination. Further, all other cases should also be considered as per existing Statutes/ Ordinances/Procedures and eligible teachers should be promoted without further delay and as early as possible.

As we have already pointed out, the existing Statutes and Ordinances were amended in the light of the UGC Regulations 2010, and no further review is currently required. Any change in Statutes and Ordnances, wherever necessary, should only be made through a deliberative process as per the past practice of this university and applied prospectively.

JNUTA shall communicate this position to the JNU administration, requesting that the JNUTA position be placed before the Executive Council, and ask for a full discussion of the issue.

Ayesha Kidwai Pradeep Shinde

President Secretary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s