The UGC had sent a letter to DU colleges yesterday, causing some alarm and confusion with regard to the status of the 5000-odd ad hoc teachers employed in colleges and departments and the salaries drawn by them.
Two sections of this letter are particularly disturbing: firstly, it stated that the contract/substitute teachers against leave vacancies of permanent teachers will be paid salaries minus allowances. Secondly, it ambiguously stated that against substantive posts falling vacant due to retirement, resignation or death, Guest/ Part-time teachers may be employed with a maximum fixed salary of a thousand rupees per lecture, not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees due per month.
Both sections are in direct contravention of Clause 13.1 of the current UGC Regulations which state: “The teachers should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a College/University” and further that “the fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.”
A delegation of the DUTA met senior UGC officials today and apprised them of this discrepancy between the letter and the UGC Regulations. It was explained to them that while the Regulations are binding, the letter is an aberration harming the cause of thousands of teachers. The UGC officials have agreed to investigate the circumstances under which such a misleading letter may have been issued to the colleges in Delhi University. The DUTA urged the UGC to withdraw the letter immediately and issue a clarification at the earliest. It also submitted a detailed representation against the letter to the UGC Deputy Secretary.
In addition, the DUTA is convening an Emergency Meeting of its Executive Committee on Friday, 23 May 2014 to take stock of the situation that has resulted from the circulation of this controversial letter.
Leave a Reply