DUTA PRESS RELEASE, 3.7.2017

Response to New Indian Express Article on Kale Committee Report


The report in the New Indian Express on the implications of the Kale Committee Report is erroneous and misleading.


The Kale Committee report has one recommendation and one observation.


1. The recommendation is for an amendment to item 4 of the EC Resolution 64 relating to shortfall. The proposed amendment reads as follows:


” Shortfall /excess if any of all reserved /unreserved posts arising out of adoption of the roster based on University/College as a unit shall be marked at the appropriate place and the same shall be filled/adjusted by the candidate(s) of the SC/ST/OBC/UR categories from the existing vacancy or from the first available vacancy arising in the particular subject/department” .


The report also adds “This will further be subject to ceiling as laid down in the DOPT guidelines issued from time to time on the subject matter.”


2. The observation from Prof P D Sahare is about the disproportionate distribution of reserved category posts between different departments. However , no recommendation is made about the solution to this problem.


Both the recommendation and the observation vindicates DUTA’s position on the matter. DUTA had recommended alternative modalities strictly in line with DOPT Guidelines, and proposed a method of allocating the reserved vacancies proportionately to different departments.


The ceiling laid down in the DOPT Guidelines is 50% of vacancies advertised in a recruitment year, excluding backlog vacancies. In other words, after setting aside backlog vacancies, not more than 50% of the remaining vacancies can be reserved for SC/ST/OBC .


Backlog and shortfall are not the same thing. According to DOPT OM dated 21.7.2008,


“2. It is important to note that there is a distinction between the ‘shortfall of reservation’ and ‘number of backlog reserved vacancies’ in a cadre. The ‘shortfall of reservation of a particular reserved category in a cadre’ means the difference between the ‘total number of reserved posts for that category in the cadre according to post-based reservation’ and ‘the number of persons of that category appointed by reservation and holding the posts in the cadre’. On the other hand, ‘backlog reserved vacancies’ of a category are those which were earmarked reserved for that category in an earlier recruitment year according to post-based reservation but remained unfulfilled in the previous recruitment attempt on account of non-availability of suitable candidates belonging to that category and are still lying unfilled. “


Thus, backlog vacancies are those that were previously advertised as reserved but not filled up due to non availability of suitable candidates. DUTA’s interpretation of backlog vacancies is the entitlement of SC/ST /OBC in posts advertised after adoption of post-based roster (2.7.97 for SC/ST and 21.3.2008 for OBC) minus the number actually appointed through reservation. In most colleges whose rosters were examined by the DUTA, this comes to 1-2 % of the vacancies and that too mostly in ST and OBC category. Thus, even after including backlog, not more than 51-52% of vacancies can be reserved in any college/University.


The figure of “4,035 reserved vacancies out of a total of 5,500” is false and misleading. It follows neither from the Kale Committee report nor the DOPT Guidelines, and is clearly planted with the intention of creating a panic among the ad-hoc teachers who have applied for permanent posts advertised by the University and Colleges in compliance with the order of the Hon’ble High Court.


The DUTA condemns this misreporting. While we welcome the Kale Committee report, apprehensions have been raised by the timing and the misrepresentation of its recommendations. It is unfortunate that despite all our representations before the appointment process started, pointing out the urgency given the timeline laid down by the Hon’ble High Court, no meeting of the Committee was held between 26.12.2016 and 16.6.2016. The sudden alacrity shown by the University administration raises doubts about the real intention, which appears to be the derailment of the appointment process. The report must be carefully studied and modalities framed accordingly.


We further wish to point out that in some colleges, the rosters have been prepared in violation of existing guidelines so that the categories of all the posts have changed, which would displace a large number of ad-hoc teachers of both Reserved and General categories. These rosters must be corrected and corrigenda to advertisements issued.