Letter to MHRD on Roster Implementation by DU

September 26, 2013

Sub: Concern over Manner of Roster Implementation
regarding Teaching Appointments in University of Delhi

The University of Delhi’s decision on modalities to implement the 200 Point Post- Based Roster for teaching positions is at variance with the clear directives issued by the UGC, MHRD and DoPT, Govt. of India. In a meeting with College Principals, Heads of Departments and the SC/ST Liason Officers on 20 September 2013, the Vice Chancellor and his team of officials instructed colleges to apply the 200 point roster to an alphabetically ordered, department-wise list of sanctioned teaching positions. The 200-Point Roster, on the other hand, is applicable to the college as a unit, in which all existing teachers as on 2.7.1997, and those appointed subsequently on permanent basis, have to be listed in order of seniority. It is on this basis that the shortfall and backlog is to be determined for the whole college and not department-wise. The arbitrary method being adopted by the University will result in faulty rosters that are open to manipulation and undo the benefits of Reservation. 

Further, the Vice Chancellor has also unilaterally decided that the cut-off date for applicability of the 200-Point Roster will be 3 September 2013, (the date on which the University issued the recent Notification to colleges and departments), even though the University E.C. had adopted the 200 point Roster for SC/ST/OBC in March 2007, and the department-wise post based roster for SC/ST in 1999. Moreover, there is a clear instruction that the shortfall (calculated department-wise) will not be filled now but as and when the current incumbents vacate the post upon retirement or resignation. The implication of this decision is that the existing backlog in Reservations will be considered non-existent and the shortfall ignored. This is against the procedures laid down in the GOI policy of reservations and is in flagrant violation of the principles of social justice and inclusion that guide the norms of Reservations in appointments. We also fear that this discrepancy will further delay the long overdue process of appointments and prolong the instability in teaching-learning in the University. 

On behalf of the teaching community in the University of Delhi, I urge you to take prompt cognizance of these discrepancies and intervene to ensure that the Roster is implemented legally and in consonance with the GOI directives and that the much-needed permanent appointments are made without any further delay.