No Recruitment Rules Yet For Higher Education Jt Directors | Mumbai News

Mumbai: The state government is still to draw up recruitment rules for the appointment of joint directors in higher education. The lack of clarity has not only led to financial losses but also academic shortfall as most of those appointed hold teaching positions in colleges and are unable to carry out their academic responsibilities.
The previous government drew up extensive rules on the recruitment of joint directors. The same is gathering dust now. In the interim, the state has picked 10 joint directors, of whom at least five are faculty members in colleges.
“The recruitment rules are being drawn up,” said a senior officer from the state government. But, said Kushal Mude, convenor of the All India NET / SET Teachers’ Organization, “Currently, all the joint directors are faculty members and the distance between their office and the academic institute where they continue to act as teachers is separated by hundreds of kilometers. It is naturally not feasible for them to travel such long distances. The state should appoint new JDs by following the norms and merit. ” Additionally, these joint directors also draw a higher pay grade than their director (higher education).
TOI had earlier written about the recruitment process by the state’s department of higher education which has appointed candidates with lower scores as joint directors of various regions and those with higher grades were shown the door, reflecting the fact that merit has been sidestepped in crucial appointments.
Candidates who were rejected by the government own scrutiny committee were given plum postings as regional directors and those with bare minimum marks hold jobs in the department. TOI has the papers accessed through Right to Information Act, showing the appointments to the 10 posts. At least four of the appointments are under a cloud. “With no recruitment rules in place, there is no clarity on who to recruit and how to recruit,” added Mude.
Of the 12 shortlisted candidates, two with top scores, one who scored 7 (which is the third highest in the list) and another 6, were not appointed to any posts and kept on the waiting list. Bypassing them, those with the lowest scores— 4 out of 10 — have been selected and posted in two regions.
Candidates were assessed on the basis of subject knowledge (4 marks), which includes university Acts, UGC rules and regulations and government resolutions; administrative ability (3 marks); and communication skills (3 marks). TOI has a copy of the scorecard and the selection-cum-rank list with 12 candidates.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button