Concerns over DMU's faculty recruitment

Dr Lojita Khaidem *

The recent recruitment process for faculty positions at DMU, Manipur has sparked significant concerns and disappointment among PhD holders and other eligible candidates in the State. The recruitment, which was advertised under Notification No 3/1/2018-DMU/Rect/2020-II on December 19, 2020, initially called for applications to fill 88 Assistant Professor positions across 22 different departments and subjects.

However, the recruitment results announced on July 18, 2024, not only covered these 88 posts but also included 60 additional posts across 16 departments. Notably, the results for the Botany and Physics departments are still pending, leaving further uncertainty.

This process has been criticized for perpetuating inequality and stifling the opportunities of many promising young intellectuals. The significant delay in results and the addition of extra posts without a clear and transparent process have contributed to a sense of injustice and frustration among candidates who have invested time and effort in their academic and professional development. The lack of clarity in the recruitment procedure has undermined confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the recruiting process at the university.

200 Points Model Roster System

A roster system calculates reservation based on cadre strength. A cadre includes all posts available to be filled within a unit ie within department or university. At present, the roster system is applied in two ways, ie, the 13-point system or the 200-point system. However, there are two fundamental differences between the 200 point and 13 point systems. They are:

A) Cadre size : The 13-point system is applied to cadres with two to 13 posts, and the 200-point roster is applied to cadres with 14 or more posts.

B) Filling of vacancies : In the 200-point system, once a post is designated as a reserved seat for a specific category (for example, ST), all future vacancies of that post must be filled by a candidate of that category. However, in the 13-point system vacancies are filled in a rotational manner.

When a university is taken as the unit for reservation, the 200-point system is used, as there tend to be more than 13 posts in a university. However, when a department is taken as a unit, the 13-point system or the 200-point system may be used, depending on the size of the department.

The issue of whether reservations for teaching posts should be calculated at the level of the entire university or individual departments has significant implications for both the distribution of reserved posts and the fairness of appointments.

The tradeoff between the two systems is that when the university is taken as a unit there is a possibility that some departments would only have reserved candidates and others would have only unreserved candidates. However, when a department is taken as a unit, there is a decrease in the total number of reserved posts within the university.

The recruitment process at DMU, particularly regarding the allocation of additional posts, has raised concerns about fairness and adherence to proper procedures. According to the result notification, the recruitment was carried out using a 200-point roster model. This raises questions about the fairness of the seat allocation for both reserved and unreserved categories.

One key issue is whether the university or department was used as the unit for applying the 200-point roster model. It is important to determine if the roster system was implemented correctly according to Constitutional reservation norms. Specifically, was the allocation of reserved seats and unreserved seats aligned with the reservations mandated by the Constitution, and how were these allocations reflected in the roster ?

Understanding these aspects is crucial to ensure that the recruitment process is conducted fairly and in compliance with legal requirements. If the roster model was not applied correctly, it could lead to inequities in the distribution of posts among different categories.

For both the systems, the number of seats reserved for SC, ST, OBC, and EWS is determined by multiplying the cadre strength with the percentage of reservation prescribed by the State. The percentage of reserved seats for each category is as follows: (i) 31% for ST, (ii) 2% for SC, (iii) 17% for OBC, and (iv) 10% for EWS (not applicable here).

Just for instance, if we consider DMU as a unit, we would use the following formula to calculate the number of reserved posts for that class : Number of posts needed to be filled x percentage of reservation/100 = 124 (excluding the Department of Physics & Botany) x 31/100 =38.44

Thus, the number of seats reserved for ST in a cadre with the strength of 148 posts is 38. Using the same formula, the number of seats reserved for SC is 2 and OBC is 21.

Again, let’s take one department namely, ‘Zoology’ as a unit. To determine the position of each reserved seat in the roster system, the standard approach is to divide 100 by the percentage of reservation for each category. For example, with the OBC quota set at 17%, dividing 100 by 17 gives approximately 5.8. This suggests that roughly every 6th post in the roster should be allocated to the OBC category.

Similarly, with the ST reservation, approximately every 3rd post should be reserved for ST candidates, and for SC candidates, every 33rd post. Applying this formula to the current roster, the expected number of reserved seats would be: ST =5, SC = 0, OBC = 2, and UR = 8. These figures are similar with the recruitment results.

Unethical Recruitment Process

The results for the faculty recruitment in the Botany and Physics departments have not yet been announced, raising concerns about the transparency of the process. According to a statement by Vice Chancellor of DMU, Gyan Prakash, there are significant issues with the recruitment procedure. The tabulation submitted by the examining authority was incomplete, showing only four candidates each for Botany and Physics in the proceedings sheet.

This is inconsistent with the actual number of shortlisted candidates, which stands at 53 for Physics and 50 for Botany. Moreover, although interviews were conducted for a total of 103 candidates, marks were recorded only for 8 candidates—4 from each department. This discrepancy in the marks tabulation further questions the fairness and accuracy of the evaluation process.

Additionally, he also mentioned that there is a need to recruit 11 Assistant Professors for Botany and 13 for Physics. However, due to the absence of a complete merit list, the recruitment process will include fresh interviews for the candidates who had previously attended interviews for these positions. This situation underscores the lack of clarity and transparency in the recruitment process, leading to uncertainty for both candidates and the institution.

Concerns

Upon reviewing the recruitment process, it is evident that there is a lack of transparency. Several issues have been identified :

A) Outdated Recruitment Notice : The recruitment was based on a notice issued in 2020. Since then, between 2020 and 2024, many new qualified candidates have emerged who have cleared NET, JRF, and hold PhDs.

B) Additional Posts : As per the UGC guidelines for Recruitment of Faculty in universities and colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement. So, the addition of 60 new posts without conducting a fresh recruitment process has deprived many potential candidates of their rights and opportunities.

C) Lack of Clarity : The ratio for how these additional posts were allocated and the details of the reservation system applied are not specified or known.

D) Seat Allocation Issues : There seems to be no proper seat allocation for UR, ST, SC, and OBC categories for the fresh interviews in two departments (Physics & Botany)

E) Missing Marks Tabulation : There is no record of the mark’s tabulation for 95 candidates (shortlisted candidates for Physics and Botany Department), which raises concerns about the fairness and transparency of the evaluation process.

Way Forward

The basic foundation of relationship between the people and the system is trust. As we are in a democratic country, we believe that everyone should have equal opportunities and justice should be delivered to everybody, as this is the only way to build the trust among the people and the system.