|
A General Body Meeting (GBM) of the AMU Teachers’ Association (AMUTA), requisitioned by a small group of teachers was held on 17th April 2008. It was mainly to oppose the following three issues:
(1) An order of the Vice Chancellor, which decided to do away with a practice of recruitment in which if a person is placed as lecturer by Local Selection Committee, thrice, s/he continues in the services Till Further Order (TFO) or till General selection Committee, whichever is earlier.
(2) The misuse of the emergency powers (under 19-3/C of the AMU Act) by the VC, which has to be used only sparingly.
(3) An order of the Vice Chancellor, which dislodged a temporary lecturer, Nasheed Imtiaz (D/O Psychology), placed against a leave vacancy of a professor, which expired. Otherwise the teachers would resort to agitations.
The speakers debated the issue in detail.
1. It should be mentioned here that no Central University in India has this kind of recruitment policy in which, through this TFO, inbreeding takes place and the competition for the recruitment is absolutely restricted, invariably closing the doors for outsiders. Many may (or may not) agree with the fact that it is this TFO which strengthens the local lobbyist/sharks – a strength on which the VCs are put under pressure, to compromise with the meritocracy in the recruitments. In fact, most of the living former VCs of AMU, would agree with this observation.
[By way of illustration, take the example of the Jamia Millia Islamia, which, unlike AMU, calls external experts in the Selection Committee, even for placement of lecturers on temporary basis, and the VC also presides over this kind of Selection Committee. Whereas in AMU, the VC or the External Experts are not included in the Local Selection Committee, only a VC nominee (of course an internal teacher) is there, besides the Dean and the Chairman].
Secondly, few were of the opinion that the UGC rules clearly provide that no temporary placement should be done for more than a year and this restriction is even stronger if such temporary placement of lecturer is done against the vacancy of the post of Reader/Professor.
The meeting gained some heat when a speaker, Dr. Shamsul H. Siddiqi, (D/O Geography), thundered asking that why did these teachers (who have requisitioned this meeting) maintained a silence when few more lecturers, placed on such position, were dislodged in past. This intervention found an overwhelming appreciation from the audience, [and many of them, while clapping, privately conversed that this kind of discrimination alludes to regional/factional discrimination]. He, along with, Dr Ariful Islam (D/O Stats.) registered the protest that on similar kind of temporary vacancies, while some are getting full salary, many (who are called Guest Faculty) are getting not more than Rs.10, 000 a month, and asked with anger and passion that why did these teachers preferred to remain silent on all such discriminations. The requisitionists however, conceded the point, and amendment to the effect was agreed that rather than talking of an individual ‘victim’, let the issue be addressed in collective terms.
Let it be added here that responding to the fresh UGC rules, the JMI and DU have already done away with the practice of recruiting Guest Faculty against a sanctioned vacant post.
Anwar Khursheed (Polytechnic) was more frank in his response, and quite fearlessly, he expressed the opinion that the practice of TFO is a questionable arrangement as a Chor Darwaza of recruiting the favoured ones, at the cost of meritocracy [by practically denying/restricting entry to/of the outsiders]. He proposed that the General Selection Committees should not be deferred for longer periods, the career of the temporary teachers should not be hanged in balance, and rather, permanent placements should keep taking place on a regular basis. Only then the teachers can teach and do research with a peace of mind. On this proposal, many among the audiences shared with each other that the VC must be extended fullest cooperation so long as he sticks to rules.
2. With reference to the alleged ‘misuse’ of the emergency powers, most of the people subjected this practice to criticism but what was ridiculous (at least for me) that many of those who were speaking against this practice, have remained great supporters/admirers of a previous VC, who has used this power much more than any other VC of the recent past.
3. The proposal to go on agitation was opposed by most of the people on the plea that the courses have to be completed and the exams have to be held on time. On the case of Nasheed, it was proposed that the AMUTA should constitute a committee to look into the details of all such cases, only then any proposal to the VC be submitted in this regard.
POSTSCRIPT: The VC should continue to stick to rules without buckling under the pressure of self-serving lobbyists, he should continue to protect all genuine interests of the employees, should grant leaves to the teachers for higher studies without invoking unjust objections, often advised by the vindictive/jealous insiders of the Departments concerned. Such practices will not alienate the silent majority of the employees, who are more willing to extend their fullest cooperation, and only then the self serving lobbyists, seeking undue favours can be thrown into the dustbin of history. The VC/AMUTA/EC should also call the bluff by bringing out a white paper on all recruitments/promotions made during the last two decades, so that the reports of irregularities are settled once and for all. [The Justice Mathew Report is merely a small tip of a huge iceberg of irregularities in AMU].
In short, justice must be allowed to prevail.
One hopes, the future discussions of AMUTA/EC will take note of such vital issues and will debate things comprehensively, sticking to the notions of justice and rules, which, of course, goes without saying.
Regards,
Dr Mohammad Sajjad
Lecturer, Dept of History, AMU
|
