Priya Varghese row: Kerala educationists cite ambiguity in UGC rules

Priya Varghese’s appointment as associate professor of Kannur University, which has kicked up a major row in Kerala, has opened a can of worms. Experts are now questioning the ambiguity in the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations and the complete lack of transparency in the entire process of appointments to colleges and universities in the state.

Two weeks ago, Governor Arif Khan, who is also the chancellor of state universities, stayed the appointment of Varghese’s alleging nepotism. She happens to be the wife of KK Rakesh, a former Rajya Sabha MP, and the personal secretary of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. 

“This is political. There is absolutely no doubt,” remarked the Governor. Her appointment has now been stayed till September 30 by the Kerala High Court.

Also read: University amendment bill portends another Governor-govt conflict in Kerala

Argument and counter

Joseph Scaria, the second rank holder supported by ‘The Save University Campaign Committee’, a collective of whistleblowers, had challenged Varghese’s appointment in the high court. She alleged that the rules and regulations floated by the Kannur University have been made to facilitate Varghese’s appointment. 

Varghese, on the other hand, claimed that she has been targeted for political reasons and people who have challenged her appointment are misrepresenting facts.

The major contention regarding her appointment is that she lacks the qualification for the post, which is a minimum of eight years of teaching experience. It is alleged that Varghese had been doing the Faculty Development Programme (FDP) for three years and was on deputation for a period of two years at the Bhasha Institute, owned by the Kerala government. The contention is that this five-year period cannot be counted as teaching experience and hence she is not eligible for appointment.

Also read: Kerala Governor hardens stance: Won’t sign Bills that go against Constitution

The Save University Campaign Committee cited the 2018 UGC regulation to prove this claim. Section 3.9 of the 2018 UGC regulation stated that ‘the period of time taken by candidates to acquire an MPhil and/or PhD degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions’.

One section, two norms

Varghese, however, challenged this argument citing the same 2018 regulation to prove her eligibility. The same section of the 2018 UGC regulation also stated, “The period of active service spent on pursuing a research degree simultaneously with teaching assignment without taking any kind of leave shall be counted as teaching experience for the purpose of direct recruitment/ promotion. The period of leave taken for pursuing a research degree, that is for acquiring a PhD degree, shall not be counted as teaching experience for the purpose of direct recruitment/ promotion.”

She argued that she was not on leave, but was in active service spending three years doing her PhD through the faculty improvement programme and the rest on deputation with full salary. Hence, the contention raised by the Save University Campaign Committee and Save University Forum as well as the second rank holder are not valid, she said.

However, the UGC’s counsel made an oral submission in the high court which went against the appointment of Varghese. In a setback for Varghese, the UGC submitted that the time taken by her for the faculty development programme cannot be considered as teaching experience for the purpose of the appointment to the associate professor’s post. The high court single bench has asked the counsel who had appeared for the UGC to give the statement in writing.

Also read: Historians, academics decry Kerala Guv’s ‘criminal’ remark against Kannur VC Gopinath Ravindran

Divided opinion 

According to experts, the faculty development programme has to be counted as experience or else it will unsettle several appointments made so far. “One who joins the service as assistant professor is entitled to avail the faculty development programme for research-based activities. This has been counted as active service till date. An order reversing this provision will lead to hundreds of litigations challenging the appointments which have been made in the past,” said Dr illias, professor and dean, faculty of social sciences at Mahatma Gandhi University.

In Varghese’s case, there are other anomalies too which have been raised by the Save University Forum and others who challenged her appointment. Petitioner Joseph Scaria said that she was granted six marks for research despite not being eligible. “PhD is  the basic qualification for the associate professor’s post, no additional marks can be given for the same,” Scaria told The Federal.

Multiple interpretations

The ongoing heated debate over the Priya Varghese case pointed to the fact that UGC regulations seem to have many interpretations. “Around 40 per cent of the UGC regulations are vague. Many of the provisions are open to multiple interpretations. The contentions raised in the Priya Varghese case — whether serving in faculty development programmes construed as teaching experience — are one. 

“Besides, the UGC regulations do not clearly spell out what kind of experience matters while considering a candidate for appointment – whether contractual experience or otherwise,” Dr Illias told The Federal.

Second case

Another case involving the appointment of Dr Rekha Raj as assistant professor at the School of Gandhian Thought and Development Studies in Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, had also recently come under the scanner. Her appointment that took place last year was cancelled by the high court by an order on August 25, 2022.

Her appointment was challenged by second rank holder Nisha Velappan Nair, who raised the contention that Raj was awarded more marks than she deserved. However, in this case too, both sides argued based on the same UGC regulations that gave ample room for several interpretations.

Also read: University amendment bill portends another Governor-govt conflict in Kerala

The main contention is that Raj was given marks for publications that were submitted during the time of the interview, which is against the rule, according to the petitioner. Raj’s appointment was done according to the 2010 UGC regulations. As per these regulations, there is no need to form separate committees for the screening and selection process. As the committee for screening and selection are the same, they are empowered to provide time for the candidate to submit publications till the time of the interview. This is the norm for all the candidates, including Raj.

Besides, the court had approved the contention that the petitioner — the second rank holder — was not given additional marks for her PhD. However, the counter argument is that the petitioner had a PhD but did not have a National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification. Since the basic qualification for applying for the post of assistant professor is a PhD, no additional marks were given to her. 

Meanwhile, Raj had both the qualifications — NET and PhD — and hence she was awarded additional marks for PhD.

Taking into account these views and counter-views, it seems that university appointments in Kerala seem to be a complex affair teeming with allegations about nepotism, lacking transparency in appointment process and above all, an ambiguous set of UGC regulations, which gives ample scope for different interpretations.