Faculty allege irregularities in SU recruitment process

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY PETITIONED WITH STRING OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VC
GANGTOK, 27 Feb: The recruitment process underway at the Sikkim University, rumblings against which have been around for a while now, came out in the open today with a section of the faculty petitioning the recently formed Executive Council alleging irregularities in the recruitment process and levelling some direct allegations of nepotism and abuse of power by the Vice Chancellor. Six Assistant Professors of SU have approached the Executive Council with their allegations and released copies of their petition, along with documents in support of their argument, to the Press today. The VC could not be contacted for comment till the time of going to print.
The protesting faculty members, all six of whom are among the twenty “internal candidates” who have been overlooked in selections to permanent teaching positions after interviews conducted recently, have challenged the appointment of the selection panels solely by the VC when the Sikkim University Act clearly stipulates the involvement of the Executive Council in this process.
They argue that the VC has done so by exercising his “emergency powers”, highlighting further that an Office Memorandum of the Secondary Education & Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, clearly stipulates that the VC “should not” exercise his emergency powers for “Routine matters like creation of teaching and academic posts, appointment to the said posts, finalizing recruitment procedures etc.” and that these  “should invariably be placed before the authorities ordinarily empowered to take decisions in such cases”.
The protesting faculty members are convinced that the VC violated this Office Memorandum [which conveys explicit directions of the President of India who is the Visitor of all Central Universities], when he finalised the recruitment procedures by himself instead of allowing the Executive Council which is “authority ordinarily empowered” a role in it.
The six faculty members who petitioned their Executive Council today are: Rajendra Prasad, Shailendra K Mishra, Tapas Kr. Bayen, Manoranjan Mishra, PM Sorel and Rinki D. Kesharwani. All of them are Assistant Professors at SU in different Departments.
Responding to the obvious criticism of this being a case of sour grapes, a press statement issued by Mr. Prasad contends that although “such irregularity in the recruitment process and unfair practices have been going on for a long time in the University, however due to the absence of the Executive Council there was no competent body to approach” thus far.
The second Executive Council of the University was introduced at its first meeting only last week on 22 February. The earlier Executive Council had demitted office on 03 April 2011. The protesting faculty members allege that the selection interviews for 16 of the 20 academic departments of the University were intentionally timed for a period when the University had neither an Executive Council nor an Academic Council in place.
The petition marked to the Executive Council points out that while the posts were created in 2008 and eventually advertised in April 2010, selection interviews were not held until 2012, after both, the Executive and the Academic [in August 2011] Councils had demitted office.
The Sikkim University Act stipulated that the selection committees to recruit faculty members shall include nominees of the Executive Council selected from a panel of names [“for their knowledge of, or interest in, the subject with which the post is concerned”] recommended by the Academic Council. This, the petition contends, has not happened in the present recruitment process with the selection panel appointed by the VC solely by himself since there were no required Councils in office at the time.
They mention in their petition that while the SU administration might justify the VC’s actions on the grounds that the First Executive Council had empowered him to do so before its term ended, this exercise of emergency powers is explicitly denied by the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of HRD quoted earlier.
This, the VC did, the petitioners are convinced, so that he could favour some candidates while expelling several internal candidates he had personal problems with. The petition goes on to highlight that the entire process was unduly rushed. Even though the interviews were held two years after the posts were advertised and applications received, it was held in New Delhi with the shortlisted candidates given very little advance notice on the dates or venue. As a result, only between 50 to 55 per cent of the shortlisted candidates made it to the interview, the petition points out.
The six faculty members have demanded that the Executive Council, in light of the arguments placed, cancel the recruitment process which has already taken place and stay the ongoing recruitment process, re-notify the recruitment advertisement and restore the services of all contractual teachers till new appointments are done.