What a game plan? It’s going on since October 2008. Chadha Committee submitted its report to UGC for teachers pay revision working in colleges and universities. Readers and lecturers in colleges and universities were out casted in its recommendations by placing them in pay band III. Central government employees of the similar cadre were placed in the PB IV. This cadre of teachers, scientists and researchers was placed in the existing pre-revised pay scale of Rs 12000-18300 with an annual increment of Rs 420 whereas Central Government employees of Rs 14300-18300 were drawing an annual increment of Rs 400, less than Readers/L(SG) . While placing central government employees in pay scale of Rs 37400-67000, no barrier/rider of kind like educational qualifications or any residency period was placed, emotions of teaching communities were hurt time and again by putting riders like residency period or higher qualification to exclude them from getting PB IV. Teachers association submitted several memorandums to UGC and MHRD to place teachers belonging to Reader/Lecturer (SG) cadre in PB IV without rider of Ph.D. MHRD notification raised hopes of teachers as MHRD notification removed the rider for this cadre for placement in PB IV. A rider of 3 years residency period was placed and it was accepted by teaching community without any resistance. MHRD notification clearly mentioned that Ph.D. qualification will be required only for appointment as Professor.

The draft regulation report to maintain higher standards in education released recently has belied the hope of this segment of teaching community by making Ph.D. an essential qualification for promotion or appointment as Associate Professor. Who is playing this game? It is a known fact that elections are going to be held very soon for the parliament in India. It appears that someone is playing this card very cleverly. He wants to ruin the prospects of present government or alliance by creating hatred among affected teachers towards the present UPA government which is trying to take care of every section of government employees. Since a large segment of teaching community will get affected by placing rider of Ph.D., it is unlikely that they will vote in favour of UPA alliance. It is learnt from reliable sources that an insider is playing this game to settle the old scores with the contemporary political leaders by playing double game. This game is going to cost heavily to incumbent government if injustice is done to incumbent Readers/L(SG) by denying them PB-IV on any pretext. In the first instance it appeared that Apex Committee was trying to reduce the burden on Government Exchequer by placing riders like residency requirements but now it has become crystal clear that this is a game plan by few to create dissatisfaction among the intellectuals who not only counts in great numbers but also have the capabilities to influence a large segment of voters in the coming elections. This is being done in connivance of both UGC as well as MHRD. Let’s hope that good sense prevails on the decision makers. This issue relates not only with money and prestige but to feelings of those who are stagnating in the same cadres for a long time and have to suffer for whole life. This issue will almost kill their zeal to work and its impact will be clearly visible in near future. This sort of frustration will not allow them to work whole heartedly and it will be a real burden that will be evident on educational standards of future generations. These sufferers will stay in the midst of lost hopes and will cast their shadows on those who will learn hundred of lessons of betrayal from them.

You can download the draculian report clicking "Draft regulation report"

A critical analysis of UGC draft regulation for maintenance of standards , done by Dr B J Kopper, is reproduced below.

At the very out set it is proved that UGC no longer remains a sovereign caretaker of teachers, instead and on the contrary it is established beyond doubt that it is the main destroyer of teacher and his credibility in the society. When the whole world looks up to teacher for its betterment, in India, the story is going to be for worse. The draft regulations 2009 reveal the utmost abhorrence and despising mind-set of the parent bodies in UGC and MHRD towards teachers in Colleges and Universities. At more than one area of regulations UGC has contradicted the MHRD Notification dated 31-12-2008, that too very drastically. This article is aimed at bringing out the plethora of anomalies and along with the incredible destructive approach of governing craftsmen. The critique may run out of alphabets to cover the fiasco and the details.

1. At 2.0.0 the Regulations states interalia as “The pay “fixation formula” developed by UGC based on the MHRD notification is appended as Appendix-II (to be received from MHRD). This fixation formula shall be adopted for teachers and equivalent positions in the Library and Physical Education cadres in Universities and Colleges”.

There is no Appendix II in the regulations and it is stated to be received form MHRD. Now the issue is attempted to be delayed for further few months.

· Initially Cabinet was unable to sit and concur to issue the pay notifications, after that

· MHRD was boggled over what to issue, and somehow a disfigured Notification was brought out on 31-12-2008 without any fitment formula or tables for the various grades of teachers (may be it was impossible for them to do that for such recommended positions)

· UGC draft regulation 2009 again is without any fitment formula and fitment tables and states that it is yet to be received from MHRD.

· This means the pay fixations for teachers have to wait for further period of months till such “formula” is invented; which seems highly impossible to be in right shape.

· It appears from this that the UGC is either having crooked brains to play spoil sport with the career and life of teachers or is totally lacking the same (brain).

1. In at 3.0.0 and 3.3.0 the UGC Draft Regulations speak of qualifications and relaxation to PhD holders for NET.

The UGC is exposing its stature as highly inconsistent for it only brought out the regulations that M.Phil degree holders are exempt from NET and elsewhere candidates who are M.Phil degree holders are selected and appointed after 01.01.2006. Some selected candidates are not issued appointment orders because of this change in stance by the UGC. It remains to be seen as to why such dilly-dally in the issue. Given its inconsistency it could also after some tine come out with a statement that M.Phil holders are exempt from NET. Is it not mandatory on the part of UGC being an institution of such great importance to be stable and think rightly while delivering strict guidelines?

1. The UGC Draft Regulation states at “3.5.0 A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D. degree holders, who have passed their Master’s degree prior to 19th September, 1991”.

Does this mean that those who have passed PG 19-09-1991 are capable as they done PhD degree? What exactly is relied upon by UGC in stipulating this date? What majot changes have taken in these 19 years (almost)?

1. At 3.7 & 3.8 UGC states that PhD degree is compulsory for Professor, and in 4.7 it states that the PhD degree is required for direct recruitment to the post of Associate Professor. Secondly and in continuation at 6.4.2 it is stated that “Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed 3 years in the current pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on 1-01-2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP Pay of Rs.9000 and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor on satisfying the API/WP as per Tables I & II through the PASS methodology stipulated in this guideline through a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Associate Professor”

• UGC Says PhD is compulsory for Professor at 3.7 and again at
• 3.8 it states PhD shall be a compulsory requirement for all candidates applying for direct recruitment as Associate Professor,
• At 6.4.2 it states that incumbent Readers (PhD degree holders) and Lecturer Selection Grade (non-PhD) will be re-designated as Associate Professor with due PASS methodology as stipulated for a Direct Associate Professor.
• The third point above is contradictory as PhD would remain a mandatory & compulsory requirement for direct recruitment as Associate Professor. Whereas the incumbent Lecturer SG who does not possess PhD also would be made Associate Professor? Or they will not be made? The regulation here lacks clarity and is contradicting its own statement made at different stages in the Draft Regulations 2009.It also indirectly means that Lecturer Selection Grade may not be considered for Associate Professor post even after completing 3 years residency as mentioned in MHRD Notification. Therefore it becomes binding on the part of UGC to make it clear whether PhD is a mandatory and compulsory degree qualification for the post of Associate Professor or not? It appears that such contradictions are the hallmark of UGC.
• MHRD in its Notification dated 31-12-2008 had spoken nothing about PhD being compulsory for Associate Professor and on the contrary has said that those all Readers/Lecturer Selection Grades who would complete 3years as on 1.01.2006 would be re-designated as Associate Professor and placed in PB IV, and also that the existing Readers Lecturers (Selection Grade) as and when complete the residency of three years would be placed in appropriate stage in PB IV.
• If the above regulation is in consultation with MHRD then MHRD needs to reissue another Notification to incorporate the new (off-track) regulation.

1. The UGC Draft regulations prescribe the most tough conditions for direct recruitment and as well as for CAS promotions by adopting to the new procedure of Academic Performance Indicators (API) and Weightage Points (WP) tables. These tables are appended with the draft regulations. It states at 6.0.0, interalia “The credit points accrued need to be collated with (a) performance of the candidate in giving a seminar or lecture in a class room situation or group discussion (b) Aptitude and ability for teaching & research and to plan, analyze and discuss a research problem and (c) capacity to technology orientation as applicable to teaching and research.

• The API as above would involve
• Assessment of aptitude for teaching, research and administration
• Ability to communicate clearly and effectively.
• Ability to plan, analyze and discuss curriculum development, research problems and college development/administration;
• Ability to deliver lecture Programmes to be assessed by requiring the candidate to participate in a group discussion or exposure to a class room situation by a lecture.
• Analysis of the merits and credentials of the candidates on the basis of the Performance Appraisal Scoring System guidelines developed by the affiliating University based on this notification.

· Thus UGC has decided to make it a tough call for any to get through the ladder of progress. It is expecting the teacher to be “perfect” in all fields and then alone would be allowed to succeed otherwise stay where one is. Weightage Points as shown in the tables in the Appendix III are unachievable normally by all the teachers. Reasons for which would include remote area where the Colleges are located, absolute nil chances for research due to academic pressure of the institute, quality of student force where more onus is on teacher to see that knowledge is drilled into the brains, stubbornness of the management.

· The compatriot Government servants need not possess any of such criteria as fixed for teachers and still they would continue to enjoy promotions and placements periodically. Is this not discrimination and violative of established law of equality?

· The minimum stipulation of API and WP for any promotion for a teacher is stipulated in a manner that would render him unable to achieve and thus languish in the scale and designation he has been. For example, if an Assistant Professor AGP 6000 is due for promotion to Assistant Professor 7000 after 4 years as he is a PhD, then he has to earn a minimum of 100 points. In view of his inability to do so for various reasons he will not be promoted as Assistant Professor 7000. Similarly a Government Servant enjoys the promotion and he need not have to acquire any points as 6 CPC has not stipulated any such criteria. Is this not pick choose difficult conditions for a particular group alone and thus constitute irrational treatment and treating equals as unequal?

1. The API standard and WP stipulated in the draft regulations in summary are as follows:

• Teaching : Max 150
• Prof. Related Activities (PRA) : Max 50
• Research Publications : Max 10/ publication in Referred journals

: Max 05/ publications in jrnls index less than 1

: Max 03/ publications in NR ISBN ISSN Jrnls

: Max 02/ full papers in Seminars

· Books : Max 20 sole & 10/ chapter edited

: Max 10, 05, 05, 03 various categories

· Projects : Max 10, 10,20, 25 based on fund mobilization

· Research Guidance : Max M.Phil 3/candidate,

: Max PhD 10/Candidate.

· Refresher Courses etc., : Max 20, 10, 05, 02 for different categories.

· Conferences etc., : Max 15, 10, 05, 02 for different categories

· Awards/honours/recognitions : Max 50, 25, 10, 05 for different statuses

· Ext, Co curr, Student Ment Ac : Max 200.

1. Now take a look at the minimum a teacher is supposed to possess for placements at different levels, though the same criteria as has already been stated is missing for compatriot government servants covered under 6 CPC.

• AP 6000 to AP 7000( 4/5/6 yrs) : Min 100 + 1 Orientation Course & 1 Refresher Course
• AP 7000 to AP 8000(5 yrs) : Min 200 (100 in relevant 5 years) + 2 RC
• AP 8000 to As.P 9000 (3 yrs) : Min 300 (100 in relevant 3 years) +PhD+2 Work Shops
• AsP9000 to Prof : Min 400 (100 in relevant 3 years) + PhD + 2 Progs.
• Prof to P 12000 : Min 600 (100 from Publications) + awards, honours etc.,

Please peruse the points below:

• The scheme as such developed is very exhaustive and fool proof to see that teacher never has any chance to think about anything other than planning how to acquire these points for accessing the progress in the form of placement to higher Grade which gives so less benefits.
• This is claimed to attract young talents to teaching, in fact on the contrary this dissuades them to stay away form the profession dreaded with so many difficulties. Therefore, anybody’s guess is that UGC has perfectly designed kill higher education in India. Let alone attracting the young talents, this design shall drive away the already present young talents who can switch over to private sector.
• When there exist no such barriers for Government Servants covered under 6 CPC, why specially design these criteria for teachers alone? The very objective of assured progression is defeated with these hurdles for a teacher who is primarily required to teaching. In this hypocritical design, the teacher is made to immerse himself in acquiring the points and satisfy the authorities in Principal, Management etc, and thus the “teaching suffers”. It appears therefore that the bureaucratic designees of this have a purpose to kill higher education. Such foolhardy criteria invite business for academics. Remember what happened with M.Phil & PhD degrees given importance in sanction of advance increments and other incentives. Internet is abuzz with news that at various places ineligible persons have been illegally sanctioned inadmissible advance increments amounting to wastage of public money. The bottom line is that the teacher is destroyed and UGC wants them to be bureaucratic in function and style.
• Moreover, these so called points are to be accorded by the authorities in Principal, Head of Departments & Management etc., with whom these are potential weapons against the righteous teachers who are not sycophants. Such scenario will generate divisions and bickering among teachers and spoil the “knowledge base” atmosphere in Colleges and Universities.

Now coming to the Table III of Appendix III. This describes the Academic Percentage Weightage table for direct requirement & CAS promotions of teachers in university departments and colleges to be worked out based on “pass methodology” specified in tables I and II.

• This is another nail in the coffin for teachers expecting and desirous of progress for placements.

Finally, to speak about the entire UGC Draft Regulations, it is found violating the MHRD Notification dated 31-12-2008.

• Suo motu UGC has made drastic, not permitted changes to MHRD Notification by stipulating PhD degree as a mandatory one for Associate Professor while MHRD said it is not.
• The points 2 (a) (vii – xi) of MHRD Notification 31-12-2008 are contradicted by UGC Regulations at 3.8, 4.3 and 6.4.3, when such power to cross MHRD is not bestowed with UGC. This is not only violation but also has resulted in disfiguring the MHRD directive.

It is very fitting to reflect the anomalies that were part of MHRD Notification dated 31-12-2008 which have been further distorted by UGC Regulations (albeit self draft).The MHRD Notification outlays the details of Pay Bands and promotional avenues and other minutiae, it also is evident in hosting anomalies, and unjustified regulations leading to further anomalies. It is also but true that the Notification lacks certain specific details about the pay revision and other requirements which have opened up further cluster of anomalies. Therefore, the present communiqué is submitted to you to accept, and understand the anomalies to issue appropriate regulatory instructions for their removal with proper replacements.

REGULATION 1

1. Designations of posts:

There have been re-designations of various posts held by teachers.

1. Assistant Professor AGP 6000
2. Assistant Professor AGP 7000
3. Assistant Professor AGP 8000
4. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AGP 9000
5. Professor AGP10000, 12000

ANOMALIES:

It is requested here by to make it known to community of teachers as to

a. Whether the post of ASSOCIATE Professor of MHRD Notification is same as that of earlier Associate Professor which is equivalent to Readers?

b. If so Assistant Professor AGP 8000 is an additional step teachers have to pass through to become Associate Professor?

c. The Already existing Readers and Lecturer Selection Grade are to be treated as Assistant Professor AGP 8000 or Associate Professor Equivalent to Readers/Lecturer SG?

d. What Pay Band will be applicable to already existing Associate Professors in various Universities and Institutions? If they are equivalent to Readers then Readers in other institutions and Universities shall also be eligible for PBIV or not?

e. The MHRD/UGC is hereby requested to state clearly regarding the fate of Readers appointed in 2007 to till date. What will happen if their University advertises the post of associate professor before their waiting period of three years is over? Will they have to appear in selection committee and get selected to protect their seniority?

REGULATION 2

1. Pay Band allocation:

1. PB III to Assistant Professor 6000, 7000, 8000
2. PB IV to Associate Professor 9000

ANOMALY:

1. If existing Principals of College in pay scale 12000-420-18300 are eligible for PB IV with AGP 10000 + Special allowance 2000, then why Readers and Lecturer Selection Grade also in the same Pay Scale 12000-420-18300 are kept in PB III as Asst. Professor AGP 8000?
2. If the Principals in the same pay scale as mentioned above are directly placed in PB IV what is the justification of stipulating the rider of 3 years for AP 8000?
3. What will be the fixation of a directly recruited Associate Professor of JNU with less than 3 year experience? I think according to clause 2(a) VIII of the MHRD Notification, he/she will go to PB-IV, whereas a similarly placed directly recruited DU Reader will be in PB-III. Evidently, qualification and pre-revised pay scale (12000-420-18300) for a directly recruited JNU associate professor and a directly recruited DU reader are same.
4. A Reader is senior to Lecturer (SG) as per existing rules. In fact, a selection committee is required for promotion from Lecturer (Selection Grade) to Reader. Now a Lecturer (SG) from July 2002 will be Associate Professor from 1.1.2006 and a July 2004 Reader who was never Lecturer (SG) will become Associate Professor only in July 2007 thereby becoming Junior. Is this not violative of set norms of seniority as per Service Jurisprudence?
5. At (x) in the MHRD Notification dated 31-12-2008 it is stated that “(x) Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who had not completed three years in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300 on 1.1.2006 shall be placed at the appropriate stage in the Pay Band of Rs. 15600-39100 with AGP of Rs. 8000 till they complete 3 years of service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader, and thereafter shall be placed in the higher Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 and accordingly re-designated as Associate Professor.

In continuation to his it is again stated in (xii) of the Notification that (xii) Assistant Professors completing 3 years of teaching in the AGP of Rs. 8000 shall be eligible, subject to other conditions that may be prescribed by the UGC and the university, to move to the Pay Band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000 and to be designated as Associate Professor.

Does it then mean that A Reader / Lecturer Selection Grade who have not completed three years as on 01.01.2006 are to be re-designated as Associate Professor after they complete three years and would be subjected to other conditions which are going to be prescribed by UGC, i.e., selection committee or interview?

1. Though the MHRD Notification dated 31/12/2008 states that the pay fixation will be as per the 6 CPC, it has failed to see that there exists no fitment table for 12000-420-18300 in 6 CPC and therefore many redundant variants are being used by different setups elsewhere in India. This anomalous condition reflects the callous attitude of the department concerned about the higher education.

1. The Pay Fixation as per 6 CPC for PGT of Kendriya Vidyalaya who are also in PB III, they are upgrading the scale, and then mapping to corresponding pay band and adding grade pay. If similar such procedure is not adopted for Assistant Professor in PB-III then Assistant Professors will get salary than PGT of Kendriya Vidyalaya. This is another anomaly that MHRD has to set right by instructive regulation for Assistant Professors in Colleges and Universities.

Suggestion:

1. Therefore in scrutiny of the above evident anomalies it is appropriate, accurate and strongly demanded to recommend PB IV to all Readers and Lecturer Selection Grade from 01/01/2006, without any riders with appropriate pay fixation in the stages referring to fitment tables to be given.
2. Issue proper guidelines for scale up-gradation and mapping to appropriate pay for Assistant Professors as has been dealt with for the PGT of Kendriya Vidyalaya.

REGULATION 3

a. It is stated interalia in the MHRD Notification dated 31/12/2008 at (iii) The pay of teachers and equivalent positions in Universities and Colleges shall be fixed according to their designations in two pay bands of Rs. 15600-39100 and Rs. 37400-67000 with appropriate “Academic Grade Pay” (AGP in short). Each Pay Band shall have different stages of Academic Grade Pay which shall ensure that teachers and other equivalent cadres covered under this Scheme, subject to other conditions of eligibility being satisfied; have multiple opportunities for upward movement during their career”. The AGPs as stipulated need a thorough re-look and redesigning in the light of the AGPs of Asst Professors/ Lecturers in the pre- revised scale of 8000-275-13500, vis-à-vis the GP of PGT Grade I and School Vice –Principal who were at par with one another in the pre-revise scale of pay Now the latter are placed in PB 3 with GP 6600, whereas the MHRD has stipulated a lower AGP for the same grade in 6000. Similarly, As per the pre revised scale Senior Lecturer and School Principals were at par (in the scale of 10000-325-15200). Now Senior Lecturer is placed with AGP 7000 whereas School Principals would draw salary with GP 7600. This is a clear case of discrimination and also violation of Article 14.

1. Suggestion:

1. Therefore, to absolve the above evident anomaly, the Assistant Professors with PB III may be provided equivalent AGP of 6600 & 7600, which is not only justified but also an act of equal treatment to equals.

REGULATION 4

1. Posts of professors in UG/PG Colleges:

1. It is stated vide (xiii) Ten percent of the number of sanctioned posts of Associate Professor in an Under Graduate College shall be that of Professors and shall be subject to the same criterion for selection/ appointment as that of Professors in Universities, provided that there shall not be more than one post of Professor in each Department; and provided further that One-fourth (25%) of the posts of Professor in UG Colleges shall be directly recruited or filled on deputation by eligible teachers and the remaining three-fourths (75%) of posts of Professors shall be filled by merit promotion from among eligible Associate Professors of the relevant department of the Under Graduate College.
2. And again under (xix) There shall be one post of Professor in each Department of a Post Graduate College and shall be subject to the same criterion for selection/ appointment as that of Professors in Universities, provided that One-fourth (25%) of the posts of Professor shall be filled on deputation/direct recruitment from among eligible teachers and the remaining three-fourths (75%) of posts shall be filled through merit promotion from among the eligible Associate Professors in the relevant department of the Post Graduate College.
3. Up to 10% of the posts of Professors in universities shall be in the higher Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 12000 with eligibility conditions to be prescribed by the UGC.

Anomaly:

1. There are UG Colleges spread widely in India where the posts of Associate Professors either or not sanctioned or do not exist at all. In such event the Lecturers/Assistant Professors who reach to Associate Professor 9000 pay are deprived of chances to become Professors. Thereby Equals are treated as unequal and hence a clear-cut anomaly in concern to Article 14 of Constitution of India.
2. Even in the PG Colleges stipulation of only One Post of Professor per Department takes away the chance from those who are equally qualified and eligible for Professorship but are denied because of this regulation at (xix) which is short of focus and reflects bias.
3. By no means 10% Professors can be screened out to be superior over the others who complete 10 years as Professors in universities. This is in view of the virtual truth that, barely a few, almost all are devoted to experienced deliberations/lectures, research guidance as internal and external supervisors, members of various high level committees for actually contributing to all developmental matters of the university in academics/ research/ policy making and face lifting in national and international delegations for duly elevating the scholastic status of Indian Nation. To doubt their credibility and integrity is appalling and painful (on the basis of just a few relatively slow workers, if any, owing to health ground).

Suggestion:

1. Instead of 10% law in UG Colleges and One post per Department in PG Colleges it may be treated in the same lines with the treatment given to Universities. This also will enable many aspirants at College level to enter University stream.
2. The graciousness, thus, on part of the Govt. is to allow the AGP of 12000 to all Professors in universities as and when they complete 10 years, because many of them will be superannuating (or having only a few years of service left) by the time they complete 10 years. This will (i) stop pick and choose on religion/ caste/ political/ local grounds which is a hard truth we must accept and (ii) relieve the administration, how-so-ever honest and meticulous it may be, of many of the worries (as to whether leave the selection process or get a bad name after conflict decisions). Thanks if the concerned authorities can accept these humble unbiased suggestions from the academic fraternity.

Regulation 5:

1. National Eligibility Test (NET) shall be compulsory for appointment at the entry level of Assistant Professor, subject to the exemptions to the degree of Ph.D.

Discrimination and Anomaly:

1. There are already many persons serving or aspiring to serve as teachers who have acquired MPhil degree based on UGC notification dated 14.06.2006. If MPhil is given no weightage now then the time, energy, money put in is wasted. The reasons for exiling MPhil from exemption is not explicitly stated anywhere in the MHRD Notification. This amounts to discouraging the degree to be pursued. Why UGC is again and again changing its decision on eligibility criterion for lecturership?

Suggestion:

1. If PhD degree is exempted from NET why not MPhil? Therefore the discrimination needs to be corrected by exempting MPhil from NET.

Regulation 6:

1. The MHRD has again gone off course in the same manner as it had in implementing the earlier Scheme 1998 stating what is stated in as “State Governments, taking into consideration other local conditions, may also decide in their discretion, to introduce scales of pay higher than those mentioned in this Scheme, and may give effect to the revised bands/ scales of pay from a date on or after 1.01.2006; however, in such cases, the details of modifications proposed shall be furnished to the Central Government and Central assistance shall be restricted to the Pay Bands as approved by the Central Government and not to any higher scale of pay fixed by the State Government(s)”.

Anomaly:

1. MHRD is very well aware of the decision of the Kerala High Court regarding the anomaly of implementing the Scheme 1998 from 27/7/1998 instead of 01/01/1996. In spite of such glaring decision from Kerala High Court, the present Notification is extending the similar anomalous conditions for the present and future thus inviting many cases of legal redressal through the High Courts and Supreme Court.

Suggestion:

1. Instead of offering the States to implement the Scheme 2006 from a later date than 01/01/2006, the MHRD needs to direct the States to implement it from 01/01/2006 thereby avoid the huge number of anomalies that would otherwise arise, and put the entire Higher Education out of gear. It is reminded again here to keep in the back of mind the decision given by Kerala High Court in 2002 & 2005 and recently in 2008. The reason of financial implication is a travesty in view of what is stated and said high about Higher Education. The financial support of 100% to states is one such act that would nib the buds of anomalies and discriminative treatments to teachers thus save many of them seeking legal redresses.

REGULATION 6: SUPERANNUATION

1. The MHRD Notification is totally fuzzy about the matter of Superannuation. In the beginning para it says superannuation age of CentralUniversities and Centrally Funded Institutions and later on in the next denies enhancement to Librarians and others as they are not engaged in classroom teaching. Overall it has not cleared the matter of superannuation as to whether it is present 62 or enhanced to 65.

Anomaly;

1. Since the states are given free hand to decide due to financial reasons, the superannuation age in different states would be different. This has been one of the main issues to make the superannuation throughout India, whether in Government, University, and Private & Public SectorColleges. By not adhering to this principle of equality MHRD has given rise to anomalous situation. When UGC and MHRD can dictate on pay perks and service conditions why superannuating is let go to be different. This will rob off the chance for any professional progress to those who are made to retire early than their counterparts elsewhere.

Suggestion:

1. It is very much needed to make superannuation a uniform feature throughout India; it may be either present 62 or may be enhanced to 65.

Regulation:

1. That the teachers be paid 40% of the arrears in this financial year 2008-09 and rest 60 % in the next year.

Anomaly:

1. In absence of clear cut directions and lapses majority of Universities and institutions have not acted upon the directive. It has been a circular reference to MHRD Notification which contains no clarity about its own direction.

Suggestion

1. Immediate instruction may kindly be issued to pay some total of amount to teachers pending final fixation and clearance with UGC Issuing perfect regulations and scheme 2008.

In view of the above, it is therefore requested that the said anomalies in the MHRD Notification dated 31/12/2008 and also the drat UGC Regulations be immediately scrutinized and proper prompt action in issuing the re-corrected Notification at the earliest and save the hassles of legal redresses. To restore the faith of teacher in the profession chosen passionately to perform and enhance the desire to learn more shall not be dwarfed by shortfall of regulations, and it is in this noble intention that this set of anomalies are brought to your notice for corrective measures at the immediate stroke. The intention to receive appropriate recognition in both status and payment by teacher shall not be snubbed by a select few who design such unacceptable recommendations which are not only discriminative but also insulting to the entire community of teachers. The teachers who are appointed for teaching should be spending valuable time in teaching and not in Courts to fight over the injustice, but that does not defeat their spirit to fight for the justice.