Home

Office Bearers

News

Circular

General Secretary

Teachers' Movement

Letter to PM

  AIFUCTO
 
  All India Federation of University & College Teachers' Organisations

Movement Resolution

 

ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE TEACHERS’ ORGANISATIONS

25TH STATUTORY CONFERENCE-AHAMEDABAD,GUJARAT


MOVEMENT RESOLUTION


This xxv Conference of the All India Federation of University and College Teachers’ Organizations held at Gandhi Vidyapeeth,Ahmedabad from 10-12 October, 2009 taking note of the neo-liberal reforms in education being pursued by the Governments both at the Centre and in the States in varying measure ,which are detrimental to the realization of the ideal of inclusive development through inclusive education which is the motto of the 11th Five Year Plan, taking note of the growing gulf between the rhetoric of inclusive development and practice of divisive strategies ,taking note of the marketization of excellence, privatization of access and marginalization of equity being sought to be imposed in the form of revised regulations for the implementation of the VI UGC scales ,taking note of the satisfactory implementation of UGC scales in the States of Jammu&Kashmir, Uttarpradesh,,Panjab,Haryana, Maharastra, Goa, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal,Jharkhand and Arunachal Pradesh incorporating the provisions of MHRD order of 31-12-2008 to a large extent and the positive steps being taken by many other states for the implementation of the revised scales , taking note of the anti-teacher, anti-educational ,authoritarian and arbitrary decision of the Gujarat Government to disassociate itself from the national mainstream by refusing to implement the UGC Scales, spurning 80% central assistance for the scheme, unanimously resolve as follows:

  1. to demand the Central and State Governments to rescind the policy of Public-Private- partnership in education and to increase the public spending and public control on education with the objective of promoting inclusive education ,including Reservation and other affirmative actions, to modify the Right to Education Act by including the provision for free and compulsory education of the children in the age group of 0 to 6 and 14 to 18 and to make ample financial provision for the implementation of the scheme ,to demand the Central Government to desist from the move to set up a National Commission for Higher Education & Research by subsuming all the existing regulatory bodies and entrusting policy formulation, regulation and national level administration in higher education with a small body to the total neglect of federal principles ,to demand the Government also not to set up off campus centres of foreign educational institutions in the country , to abandon the move for compulsory accreditation of higher education institutions and to entrust the responsibility for accreditation with private agencies, to desist from the move to introduce differential scales for teachers in new Central Universities and to authorize the Secretariat of AIFUCTO to plan and implement corrective public campaigns and agitations against the misguided educational policies and practices of the Central and State Governments independently and in collaboration with democratic movements of teachers, parents, students and other public spirited organizations , and to exhort the teachers across the country to undertake teaching , research and extension with greater sense of dedication and social commitment than ever before in view of the increased role that education has come to play in ensuring inclusive development in a world which is increasingly being governed by knowledge

  2. to demand the Gujarat Government to rescind the order implementing State scales for college and university teachers and to immediately implement the revised UGC scales as per MHRD order dated 31-12-2008 and to authorize the Secretariat of AIFUCTO to take up appropriate and adequate nation wide action programme to strengthen the Gujarat teachers’ struggle for the implementation of UGC scales

to demand the States which have not so far issued orders implementing revised UGC scales to take immediate steps in this direction on the basis of MHRD order of 31-12-2008 in toto and to authorize AIFUCTO Secretariat to extend all possible assistance to the struggles being undertaken for the implementation of the revised UGC scales in such states

  1. to demand the states refrain from adopting unilateral steps related to the higher education structure without the consent of teachers’ organizations of the concerned states and the attempt of Tamilnadu Govt. to convert Govt. and Govt. aided colleges into unitary type universities will be resisted and the Tamilnadu Govt. be requested to adopt alternative proposal of creating new universities in areas where there is no university at all and affiliate the colleges in and around that area

to oppose the actions of Orissa Govt. regarding the introduction of state pay scales for teachers and denial of UGC pay scales to teachers appointed after 1989 along with the Block Grant Scheme which be scrapped and parity with the rest of the country be restored immediately

(4) to demand that the research degree (Ph.D/M.Phil) benefits and allowances be given from 01.01.2006 rather than from 01.09.2008 (as per MHRD order of 31.12.2008)

  1. to authorize the Secretariat of AIFUCTO to take every step including negotiations with UGC and MHRD and Direct Action to communicate AIFUCTO’s understanding on the revised UGC draft regulations for the implementation of the revised pay scales as stated below and to demand comprehensive revision of the draft regulations in accordance with the following general formulations and specific demands:

a.AIFUCTO notes with great concern that the revised regulations have not incorporated most of the demands (see annexure 1)made by the organization during the course of the hearings held at Hyderabad, Pune, Kolkota, and Delhi, despite wholesome promises made by Prof. Thyagarajan, Chairman of the drafting committee, to incorporate the concerns of AIFUCTO for inclusive regulations. On the contrary, the revised draft has added more stringent conditions designed to exclude the large majority of teachers, working in universities and colleges with poor infrastructure facilities, from the benefits of the new pay revision.

b. The drafting committee has refused to correct the metropolitan bias that had characterized the earlier draft. The regulations are governed by the flawed notion that quality of higher education in the country could be improved and accountability of teachers ensured by imposing a set of rigid and arbitrary norms, borrowed from abroad. The implementation of regulations drafted on the basis of such norms will not only discourage creativity and diversity which are the hall marks of excellence, but also encourage plagiarism, deceit and subservience among the teachers. The drafting committee seems to forget that quality in teaching, research and extension cannot be quantified in precise terms, more so by using questionable parameters, on the usefulness of which there is considerable difference of opinion among experts. What is important is to ensure adequate facilities for improvement of the quality of teaching, research and extension activities and to ensure the participation of teachers in all these activities, preferably by giving room for each individual teacher to give differential weightage to each of these activities, in accordance with his/her talent, which is essential for bringing out the best in him/her. The basic contradictions in the original draft regulations---measuring academic quality in terms of quantity, academic input in terms of monetary input, of privileging the global over the local and of equating standards with standardization --- have not been addressed even in the revised draft.

c. The drafting committee does not seem to have appreciated the essential difference between selection and screening processes. Selection is required only where elimination is an imperative, where the number of available posts is less than the number candidates contesting for the post, as the case of direct recruitment to all posts and CAS promotions to the posts of Professors. In other cases, including promotion to the post of Associate Professor, where all teachers who fulfill certain minimum requirements are to be promoted, what is required is only a screening process to ensure that minimum requirements have been fulfilled. While the management of the college concerned may be represented in the selection committee, the screening committee should be a body of experts in which the management need not be represented. Protection from likely harassment by managements of private institutions, which are not especially known for their academic commitments, is extremely important to ensure the academic autonomy of the individual teacher, which is an essential for the promotion of excellence in higher education

d. It is extremely disconcerting that even the requests for greater clarification in the text of some provisos which could dispel ambiguities – as in the case of the difference in the weekly workload under six day and five day systems—have not been conceded by the drafting committee, giving the impression that the consultation held by the Committee at five different parts in the country has been a farce, designed to create a false impression of consensual evolution of the regulations.


e. In the light of the above, AIFUCTO demands the following:

(1)Immediately release the minutes of the consultative meetings held at Hyderabad, Pune, Kolkota , and Delhi and the minutes of the committee meeting which has finalized the revised draft , setting aside the major concerns of AIFUCTO

(2). UGC convene a meeting of national level teachers’ organizations before placing the regulations for the consideration of the Commission and place the minutes of the discussion along with the revised draft for the consideration of the Commission

f. Meanwhile AIFUCTO reiterates its uncompromising opposition to the unwholesome regulations and demands the withdrawal of the objectionable conditions in the Regulations, the chief of which are the following:

  1. the rigid ,mechanical system mandated for assessment of teacher performance , with categories that necessitate subjective judgments which could prejudicially affect the career prospects of righteous and independent-minded teachers and encourage only uniformity and conformism, injurious to creativity and diversity which are essential for the promotion of excellence

  2. the privileging of international journals with impact factor over national/local publications as there is no academic consensus on the reliability of impact factor as a measurement of quality in research publications and as the distribution of such publications is skewed across disciplines

  3. the institution of selection process in place of screening process for CAS promotions in respect of Associate Professor, as personal promotion to Associate Professor should be available to all teachers, subject to the fulfillment of certain minimum requirement ,which can be verified by a screening committee

g. AIFUCTO also requests that UGC consider the following further demands and make necessary changes in the proposed regulations


(1)CAS Promotion Process:

The selection process for CAS promotion to Associate Professor should be replaced by screening process and accordingly the relevant committee should be re-designated as screening committee.

(2) Selection /Screening Committees:

While there could be representatives of the management in the selection committees to various posts, the screening committees should only consist of institution/department heads and experts. There should be no representative of the management in the screening committees for CAS promotions, up to and including the post of Associate Professor. The experts to the selection committees for recruitment/ screening committees for career advancement should be nominated by the Vice Chancellor from among a panel of experts constituted by the relevant statutory body of the University concerned. The stipulation that the selection/screening procedure shall be completed on the day of the selection/screening committee meeting etc. shall be made uniformly applicable to all selection/screening procedures. The provision for inclusion of UGC observer in selection /screening committees should be withdrawn as such interference with the autonomous functioning of Universities and colleges is unacceptable in principle and burdensome in practice.

(3)Online journals and internal quality assurance mechanism:

It should be mandatory for all universities to start online journals in all disciplines and to institute subject-wise screening mechanism to ensure the quality of publication, so that no teacher will be denied opportunity for publication due to constraints of space . The requirement of publication for CAS promotion should be suspended till such time the concerned university makes facilities for online publication


(4)Parity of Librarians and Physical Education Directors with Teachers

The qualifications and the number of years of service required for direct recruitment and promotions for the posts of Librarian / Dy. Librarian / Assistant Librarian/ College Librarian as well as for the posts of Director of Physical Education / Dy. Director of Physical Education / Assistant Director of Physical Education should be respectively at par with Professor / Associate Professor / Assistant Professor in universities / colleges

(5)Clarity in respect of PhD that would qualify for advance increments/CAS

The drafting of the revised regulations 3.3.2. is so ambiguous that it makes little sense. This may be replaced along the lines of the proviso 4.4.1.iii., which reads as follows:“Holders of Ph.D degree as on the date of notification of these Regulations, along with those candidates who are awarded a Ph.D degree through a process of admission, registration, course work and external evaluation as laid down in UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for award of M.Phil/Ph.D degree )Regulations ,2009 and so adopted by the university ,shall be exempted from NET/SLET/SET”.It should be specifically and uniformly stated in all relevant provisos that holders of Ph.D degree as on the date of these Regulations will be exempted from the requirement of being awarded a Ph.D degree through a process of admission, registration, course work and external evaluation as laid down in UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for award of M.Phil/Ph.D degree) Regulations,2009 for the purposes of Direct recruitment, advance increments and CAS promotions to all posts. The adjectives “concerned/allied /relevant discipline” should be appended to all provisos dealing with requirement of Ph.D qualification (for Direct Recruitment/Advance increments and CAS promotions) ,so that there would be no ambiguity in regard to the disciplinary boundaries, within which Ph.D qualification would be acceptable for purposes of direct recruitment / CAS promotions

(6) Anomaly of junior drawing higher salary than senior

(a)Implementation of Clause 6.4.1.2 of the revised regulation would lead to a situation where a Reader appointed on or after 1.1.2006 would draw more than a Reader appointed prior to 1.1.2006 and would be eligible for promotion to the post of professor earlier than the senior. This anomaly has to be rectified by ensuring that in such cases parity will be maintained between senior and junior in pay scales and promotion prospects, by invoking the following Clause in Central Civil services (Revised Pay) Rules,2008 ,both in letter and spirit:

Where in the fixation of pay under-sub rule (i), the pay of a Government servant, who, in the existing scale was drawing immediately before the 1st January, 2006 more pay than another Government servant junior to him in the same cadre, gets fixed in the revised pay band at a stage lower than that of the junior, his pay shall be stepped to the same stage in the revised pay band as that of the junior”

(b)Three advance increments awarded to PhD holders in the new scales create the anomaly of seniors with the same qualification drawing less than that of his/her juniors ,Those Associate Professors who are awarded Ph.D after 01-01-2006 will get three increments in the Scale of 37,400-67000. At the same time, those pre-2006 Ph.D. holders who

(i) have not availed any incentive for their Ph.D. in the existing scheme.

(ii)have availed Ph.D incentive in the earlier scheme and merged subsequently during the fixation of pay at Senor Scale/LSG/Reader/Rs.14,940/ fixation

(iii)have availed Ph.D incentive and continue to get at the time of moving into Associate Professorship in PB-4 are fixed at the minimum of the Pay Band of 37,400-67,000.

To rectify a similar anomaly, it was provided as follows in the 1998 regulations for implementing Vth UGC scales:

6.3.0 A lecturer with Ph.D will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into Selection Grade/ Reader”

To rectify the present anomaly, THREE advance increments should be granted for all those pre-2006 Ph.D holders after fixing their scale in PB-4 on 1-1-2006, irrespective of whether they have availed the incentive benefit in the earlier scheme or not . Provision can be made to adjust one bunching benefit obtained by certain teachers covered under category (iii) who continue to get two incentive benefits as on 1.1.2006 in the earlier scheme.







(7)Anomaly due to unification of date of increment

The anomaly created by unification of increment date on 1st July may be rectified by giving an advance increment as on 1.1.2006 to all teachers whose date of increment falls between 2nd January and 30th June.

(8) Rule of interpretation:

It should be clearly stated in these regulations that in case of any discrepancy between these regulations and MHRD order dated 31-12-2008, the latter shall prevail and that all aspects not covered under these regulations shall be governed by previous UGC regulations, observing the general principle that where there is conflict, the latter regulation shall prevail over the former.

(9) Correction of apparent mistakes :

The UGC should make a thorough check to identify and correct inadvertent mistakes made by the drafting committee like those occurring in 6.4.9 and 6.4.10 where pay band 111 has been written in place of pay band 1v

AIFUTO reiterates the following demands that were placed by the organization for the consideration of Prof. Thyagaarajan Committee (see appendix 1 for details)

(1) Teaching Days, Weekly Workload and Annual Vacation:

While giving the annual schedule of work under the six-day system in colleges, the draft regulations mandate that if the university adopts a five day week pattern, then the number of weeks should be increased correspondingly to ensure the equivalent of 30 weeks within six day week. The import of the regulation is clear. The yearly workload of individual teacher should be the same, both under five-day and six day week systems. Where the system of five day week is introduced in place of six day week, the number of working weeks should be appropriately increased and annual vacation and weekly workload appropriately reduced so that the yearly workload of a teacher under both systems remains the same. The equivalence of weekly workload and annual vacation under the two systems may be worked out as follows:




Weekly

Schedule of work

Number of working days


(per year)

Number

of

working

weeks

(per year)

Workload

Lecture

hours

(per week )

Workload

lecture

hours

(per year)

Annual

Vacations

(in weeks)

Six-day

Week


180


30


16


480


10

Five-day

Week


180


36


13.5


486


8

It is evident from the above table that the weekly workload should be reduced to 14 hours and the annual vacation to 8 weeks, where the five day system is followed in place of six day system. The differential annual calendar and the weekly workload for the two systems should be clearly shown in the UGC regulations, as State governments have refused to accept the rationale of differential calendar and weekly workload in the past.

(2)Rectification of anomaly in respect of 14940 fixations:

The most important anomaly that needs to be rectified in respect of the implementation of the V UGC Pay scales is that pertaining to placement in the scale of pay of 14940/- on completion of five years in the post of Reader /Selection Grade Lecturer. While the placement was permitted on completion of five years in the Selection Grade /Reader in respect of all who had come into it as on 1.1.1996 , the benefits were denied to those who had come into Selection Grade /Reader after 1.1.96. Even as numerous petitions are pending in different High Courts, a judgment has been issued by the High Court of Kerala on 21st January, 2009 in Writ Appeal Nos.1394, 1881, 1925&2067 of 2008, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. As the petition has been disposed of with the concurrence of both MHRD and UGC, it has become conclusive, leaving no scope for further appeal. It has been ordered as follows:

Those teachers who were Lecturers as on 1.1.1996 and who were subsequently placed in the Selection Grade after 1.1.1996 ,they will be entitled to draw the scale of pay of Rs.14940/-on completion of five years in the selection grade .”

The above order is specifically applicable only to the petitioners. Other teachers would now move the courts to ensure the extension of the same benefits. In view of the conclusive nature of the judgment, AIFUCTO would appeal to UGC to urgently take up the matter with MHRD and issue general orders implementing the benefit of fixation at 14940/- to all teachers who come into selection grade after 1.1.96 and to release the central assistance for the payment of arrears to teachers across the country who will be benefited by the orders , with a view to earning the goodwill of the teaching community ,by avoiding further litigation in the long pending issue .

(3) Counting of past service:

Previous service with/without break, whether in permanent or temporary capacity, whether appointed against substantive or temporary vacancy, whether absorbed in same post in continuation of ad hoc appointment or not, should be counted for placement/ promotion, irrespective of the period of temporary service

(4) Designated Professors:

It should be specifically stated in the UGC regulations that those already designated as Professors shall continue to be so designated, as in MHRD order dated 31-12-2008.

(5) Recruitment of Principals:

The contribution to extension should be taken into account along with teaching and research for the direct recruitment of the Principal as principals have to administer teaching, research and extension in colleges. The same provision regarding reappointment of Vice Chancellor should be made applicable to college principals as well, by providing that appointment for a second term should not be made to the same college

(6)Uniform Implementation of Pay and Allowances :

UGC should take further steps to prevail up on the central Government to grant 100% assistance for the implementation of the new scales, including allowances and to regulate that parity will be maintained between teachers in central and state institutions in all respects, including allowances

(7) Uniform applicability of the regulations to all institutions, including minority educational institutions

As mandated by the Supreme Court of India Higher Education constitutes national wealth and the norms for maintenance of quality in higher education institutions should be uniformly applicable to all institutions including minority educational institutions and therefore UGC should not concede the demand for exemption from some of the provisions of the regulation, being made by vested interests under the guise of protecting minority interests


Thomas Joseph   Asok Barman
President   General Secretary


 

 

 

 

   

2008-2011 - 2006 AIFUCTO