The Delhi College (DU) administration has come below the scanner by a piece of lecturers for bypassing the seniority norm in appointing the Head of the Division (HoD) of Political Science by superseding three senior professors. Nonetheless, DU has denied the allegations.
The brand new HoD Sangit Kumar Ragi was appointed after former HoD Veena Kukreja died of post-Covid issues on Might 14. Within the interim, Rekha Saxena was made the officiating HoD.
Nonetheless, on June 4, Registrar Vikas Gupta issued a notification stating, “As per the provisions of Statute 9 (2)(d) learn with Ordinance XXIII and topic to the provisions of Statute 38, the Vice-Chancellor has appointed Prof. Sangit Kumar Ragi, Division of Political Science, because the Head, Division of Political Science, with quick impact for 3 years.”
Sources stated in appointing Ragi, DU had bypassed three extra senior professors – Rekha Saxena, Ashok Acharya and Madhulika Banerjee.
“Till Veena Kukreja’s appointment as HoD, the norm of seniority had been adopted. Rekha Saxena has been Professor since 2010, whereas Ragi turned Professor in 2014. All three professors who had been outdated turned professors by means of the Benefit Promotion Scheme (MPS) as a result of they had been already within the division, whereas Ragi was straight introduced in as Professor. There ought to be readability on what foundation they’ve appointed him HoD,” stated a senior trainer below the situation of anonymity.
DU Registrar Vikas Gupta, nevertheless, stated Ragi was the senior-most: “There was a call within the EC (Govt Council) on decide seniority between a direct recruitee and promotee. On this case, the direct recruitees joined on November 3, 2014, and their advice was accepted by the then V-C on November 1, 2014. Within the case of the promotees, the advice of the Choice Committee was accepted by the then V-C on November 7, 2014. So we decide seniority from the date of approval of the V-C or the EC which makes the direct recruitee senior on this case.”
One of many professors who had been outdated stated this was “an unlucky interpretation” of DU’s guidelines. “It’s a longtime precept within the college that those that are promoted are achieved so with retrospective impact from when the promotion was due. Typically the V-C’s approval takes time however the date of seniority is rarely disturbed due to that. That is what has been adopted. This can be a clear-cut case of violating the time-honoured precept of seniority, that too by an Appearing Vice-Chancellor. Even when the V-C has a prerogative, it ought to be clear why there was a deviation from the norm, and that prerogative ought to be of the everlasting V-C, not an Appearing V-C,” the professor stated.
Educational Council member Naveen Gaur cited Clause 1 of Ordinance XXIII which states that “the Head of the Division shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor by observing, so far as doable, the precept of rotation”. The Ordinance additionally states that seniority would be the foundation of rotation.
“The seniority in an establishment is outlined by the entire time in an establishment and the efficient promotion date. For eg, if I used to be promoted from Degree 10 to 11 on (say) January 1, 2021, and my eligibility was from January 1, 2014, then my promotion shall be w.e.f. the latter date and I’ll get all the advantages from 2014. It isn’t the trainer’s fault if the college is delaying promotions,” he stated.
Nonetheless, Gupta stated, “Underneath the MPS, lecturers will get promotion from the date of eligibility however seniority shall be counted from the date of approval (of the EC or the V-C). They are going to get monetary advantages retrospectively, however their seniority shall be recognised from the date of approval itself.”
When contacted, Ragi refused to remark saying he was within the hospital because of post-Covid points, and requested that the college authorities be contacted.
Rekha Saxena, who’s additionally allegedly outdated, stated, “The difficulty issues framework inside which seniority guidelines are being adopted within the College, because the confusion arose after two letters of providing headships contained the identical provisions of the statutes and the ordinances. I’m hopeful that quickly this ambiguity of guidelines, adopted within the stated matter, creating the confusion could be cleared by the College.”