Feedback on the draft UGC Regulations 2025 

Click to see the email sent to UGC

Click to see the pdf of the points in the feedback

The feedback  was accompanied by  a cover letter  signed by the General Secretary on AIPSN letter head .

The text of the letter and feedback is given below

02 Feb 2025

To

Prof. Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar

Chairman, UGC

cm.ugc@nic.in

draft-regulations@ugc.gov.in

Sub: Feedback on the draft UGC Regulations 2025

                        Ref: UGC Secretary  Lr No. F. 6-1/2025 (Regulations Feedback) dt 6 Jan 2025

Based on the request in your above referred letter from the UGC site, please find attached the feedback from AIPSN on the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025

 Do acknowledge the receipt of this document.

 Look forward to having all the inputs received made available publicly.

 There are 11 points of concern that AIPSN has raised in the 2 pages below. Importantly AIPSN demands the withdrawal of the draft revised UGC Regulations-2025 which goes against the federal structure of the constitution, destroys the academic autonomy and is against the interests of marginalized students and goes beyond the UGC mandate.

Yours sincerely

Asha Mishra

General Secretary, AIPSN

Mobile: 9425302012

cc:  Secretary, UGC Email: secy.ugc@nic.in

02 Feb 2025

All India People’s Science Network

Feedback from AIPSN on the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025

                      UGC Secretary Lr.  No. F. 6-1/2025 (Regulations Feedback) dt 6 Jan 2025

Points of serious concern:

  1. Non-Academicians as Vice-Chancellors: The regulations (10.1.i) permit the appointment of non-academicians as Vice-Chancellors, which has sparked fears about the privatization of universities and the marginalization of disadvantaged students especially if business persons or others with vested interests are made Vice-Chancellors. The draft regulations have far-reaching implications for the higher education sector in India. The appointment of non-academicians as Vice-Chancellors may lead to the privatization of universities, undermining their social responsibility to provide access to education for marginalized students.

 

  1. Chancellor’s Nominee as Chairperson: The draft regulations (10.1.iv.a) propose that the Chancellor’s nominee will be the chairperson of the search-cum-selection committee for appointing vice chancellors. The Chancellor being the Governor for State Universities, this move raises concerns about potential political interference in academic appointments and is against the autonomy of the public funded State run Universities. It is a back door move that deprived the State of control over the University it has created for the welfare of students in that region.
  2. A nominee of UGC: This (10.1.iv. b.) also helps the union government’s indirect control over selection of candidate. UGC which was an independent body established under an act has now almost become the wing of the Union Govt. to implement New Education Policy which was not accepted by many state governments.
  3. Against the Statutes of each state university: 10.1.v refers that the conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the respective University in conformity with these Regulations. If so, how UGC can lay down conditions to constitute a selection committee when the statutes are made by the State Government. Hence the selection of Vice-Chancellor should be based on existing rules and regulations of each and every university as the conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the respective University in conformity with these Regulations. The Search Committee should be constituted as per the rules and regulations of each and every university.

 

  1. Appointment of Asst.Professors: Provision for recruitment of Academic Staff in University and College have been separately mentioned implying that cadre selection and service conditions for University and College will be different but with the same academic qualifications. It will dismantle the parity among the staff with the same qualifications. It’s against the spirit of equality. 3.3 states that if the discipline/subject chosen in the 4-year undergraduate programme (NCrF level 6) or postgraduate programme (NCrF level 6.5/7) is different from the chosen discipline/subject in NET/SET, the discipline/subject in which a candidate qualified NET/SET shall be considered eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in that discipline/subject. This guideline will not help to get qualified people for the subject concerned and instead help institutions to fill the vacancy with candidates of their choice.
  2. Recruitment and Promotion (3.8): The candidate for appointment and promotion need to have any four of the nine notable contributions may deprive the candidates from appointment and promotions as these opportunities are inaccessible to all unlike educational opportunities. These opportunities may be given to all after recruitment.
  3. The withdrawal of the cap on contract appointments (8.0) in teaching positions will lead to HEIs becoming teaching shops with contractual labor especially in the context of governments reducing and withdrawing from financial support of State Universities. The sanctioned post must be filled by permanent faculty.
  4. Violation of UGC regulations(11.0)These regulations are based on NEP-2020 which is not accepted by some States and in the  context of these regulations and the imposition of NEP  it will provide a handle for the Union Government controlled UGC to threaten and coerce HEIs to start following NEP.
  5. Privatization and Commercialization: The regulations’ emphasis on industry partnerships and entrepreneurship has raised concerns about the increasing privatization and commercialization of higher education, which may lead to a decrease in funding for social sciences, humanities, and other non-lucrative fields. This will also reduce access to education for marginalized students.
  6. Though the draft regulations are open for public feedback, it seems more like a ritual given the time frame and the history of earlier invitation of comments which are never made available in a transparent manner. The comments received and the response to the comments should be made available in the website.

We demand the withdrawal of the draft revised UGC regulations-January 2025 which go against the federal structure of the constitution, destroys the academic autonomy and is against the interests of marginalized students and goes beyond the UGC mandate

 For Contact:

Asha Mishra                                                    P.Rajamanickam

General Secretary, AIPSN                              Convenor, Higher Education Desk AIPSN

Mobile: 9425302012                                       Mobile 9698025569

Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com                                      Email: rajamanickamponniah@gmail.com