DUTA Letter to the VC, 3.7.2017

DUTA Dharna 14July 1-3pm at Gate No 1,  venue of EC meeting,  to protest against decision of NFS in OBC post in Dept of Financial Studies. EC must review decision and select candidate with highest marks. Please join in large numbers. Nandita Narain (Pres), Sandeep (Secy)

11.7.2017
The Vice Chancellor,
University of Delhi,
Delhi-110007
Dear Sir,
In the DUTA Executive meeting held on 7.7.2017, it was reported by our EC members that the decision of the Selection Committee set up to select a candidate from OBC category for appointment as Assistant Professor in the Department of Financial Studies was “No one was found suitable” (NFS)
It is indeed a matter of great misfortune that this was the result in the very first interview for permanent positions held after a very long time and that too under the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.
It is also mystifying that after a proper advertisement, giving enough time for candidates from all over the country to apply,  as many as sixteen candidates cleared the very rigorous screening and appeared for the interview, but none was found “suitable” for the post!
How exactly has “suitable” been defined by the selection committee?  Wasl there a minimum mark fixed for this?  Was the same minimum mark,  if any,  fixed for candidates from SC, ST or UR categories? What marks were awarded to the candidates in the 50:30:20 breakup adopted by the EC on the basis of UGC Regulation? Were these
details made known to the Executive Council? If not,  then this a gross violation of (a) UGC Regulation that insists on transparency in selection process  (b) Statute 19(7) that gives the EC the power to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee with reasons,  for which full facts have to be disclosed to the EC  (c) Reservation Policy of the GoI,  which has no provision for NFS (d) EC Resolution 64 which has no provision for NFS.
The DUTA Executive has unanimously demanded that the EC re-examine the matter,  and take a decision to select the candidate with highest number of marks awarded by the selection committee under the 50:30:20 rule. Needless to say,  this will have to be submitted to the Visitor for his final orders,  as per the provisions of Statute 19(7).
This matter should be taken up in the forthcoming meeting of the EC on 14th July. Failure to correct this decision will send an unfortunate message to the teaching community that the University is neither serious about making permanent appointments nor about implementation of the Reservation Policy.

With regards,