TO: The Academic Council, W.B.N.U.J.

S, Kolkata Re: Grievances of faculty members in relation to standards and irregularities at the University. fall in academic

Dear Honourable Council Members, Firstly, our apologies for calling on your time with this. However, owing to the urgency of the situation, we have no choice than to turn to you for redressal of our grievances. We are a group of faculty members that are very concerned about the rapid academic decline of NUJS and major irregularities in academic matters at NUJS . While there are several issues at hand, we wish to focus on just some of them for the immediate purposes of this academic council meeting.

1. Opaque Policy Making on Academic Matters:

We find that policy making at NUJS has become very opaque, particularly in relation to academic matters. From an earlier era that boasted invigorating faculty meetings at which we brainstormed critical issues pertaining to NUJS policy and legal education in general, the number and regularity of faculty meetings have fast dwindled. And even the meetings that are called, are called mainly to inform us of events/activities and not so much with a view to discuss and deliberate policies. We implore you to foster a more transparent policy-making ecosystem and direct convening of regular faculty meetings and consultative sessions. We find that none of the grievances brought by us form time to time in this regard are effectively redressed. Enclosed as ANNEXURE A is a document containing a chain of emails showing that faculty concerns in relation to subject allocations for this semester were never addressed despite several emails to the VCs office. Also enclosed as ANNEXURE B, is a chain emails
1

where faculty members have expressed their anguish and questioned a sudden change in policy with respect to examination rules pertaining to evaluative components for repeat exams. This was again never addressed despite the fact that this decision appears to have been made bypassing the UG council, the main council for discussing and deliberating on UG policy matters. In fact, this sudden change in the rule also has the effect of contravening the academic rules approved by the AC in an earlier meeting. In fact, just today, the senior-most professor, Professor Shamnad Basheer raised these issues in an email, where a faculty advisory meeting was called with hardly any notice. This is attached as Annexure C. 2. Ad Hoc Academic Appointments Standards and Whimsical Committee

Very often, we find that academic policies are changed at the drop of a hat. Also, such changes are never notified in time, but appear to be arbitrarily and selectively imposed on students. Further, we are not clear as to how the so called moderation committees are constituted and what their remit is. It would appears that most such committees are constituted at the whim and fancy of the Vice Chancellor, overlooking senior teachers.

In fact, many committees and councils constituted by the Honourable Vice Chancellor and most importantly, the Under Graduate and Post Graduate Councils are constituted overlooking the seniority of faculty members. Illustratively, the current Co-ordinator of the UGC student Councill Cell was nominated by the University when he was an Assistant Professor. He is being paid Rs. 1000/- per month as monetary benefit as well. It is clear that this was done by overlooking senior teachers. This is also witnessed for Moderation Committees as well. Please refer to Annexure D.

According to Regulation no. 16 (3) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, which says ..The rules and regulations of the respective Central/State Government shall apply, for all other matters of seniority . It is amply clear that the University shall apply mandatorily the seniority rule in its public affairs both in academic and administration .
2

We beseech the honble members of the academic council to seek clarifications on all the above irregularities from the Honourbable Vice Chancellor.

3. Arbitrary Grace Marks and Moderation

The policy is not clear and appears to be highly arbitrary. Please see attached document (Annexure E) which contains a response to an RTI that suggest that marks as high as 13 were granted to students without any cogent rationale. This affects the sanctity of evaluation done by the teacher. The honble members of the academic council should seek explanation about this irregularity.

4. Recruitment Irregularities: a. There is ostensible favouratism in recent appointments. One Associate Professor (Sandipa Bhat) and one Assistant Professor (Chengapa) have been selected. It is pertinent to note that both of them have prior relations with the current Vice Chancellor, as one pursued LL.M. and the other pursued his PhD degrees under him from Mysore University. Sandipa Bhat was also his research assistant at Mysore University.

Chengapa, who was less qualified than two other internal candidates and had no prior teaching experience (as a lead teacher) was appointed. One was a JRF qualified candidate belonging to a minority/backward community and having prior teaching experience. Another was a NET qualified person who again had prior teaching experience and in fact had been
3

teaching at NUJS itself on an ad hoc basis.

Sandipa Bhat was appointed as an Associate Professor, ignoring a highly qualified trade law scholar, Sheela Rai who had an OUP book to her credit and an impressive academic record and longer years of teaching experience. The following questions arise:

i)

How is it that the Honbe Vice Chancellor sat in on a selection committee and selected his very own PhD student? Why didnt he recuse himself when the particular candidate presented himself? Was the selection committee panel recommended by the Academic Council in accordance with Schedule 17 and other applicable provisions of the NUJS Act? Was the selection committee panel constituted in accordance with Regulation 5.1.1/2 and other applicable provisions of the UGC regulations 2010?

ii)

iii)

It is prayed that the Honble members of the academic council please investigate the mater immediately interalia by appointing a committee to conduct a detailed investigation on the issue.

5. Arbitrary Faculty Emoluments:

a. Policies in relation to teachers qualification experience and emoluments appear to be rather arbitrary and in gross violation of UGC norms. Recently, Yashomati Ghosh who is a JRF qualified candidate and teaching at NLSIU, Bangalore got selected for the position of Assistant professor at NUJS. It is pertinent to note that she was also a Fullbright Fellow and worked at the prestigious Berkman Center at Harvard University. Yashomati requested for pay protection that was declined by the selection committee at the instance of Vice Chancellor saying that NUJS does not grant pay protection.
4

Yashomati was forced to accept this decision, though it contravened UGC Norms (NUJS is a beneficiary of significant UGC sums).

More egregiously, she was denied the possibility of extending her joining date by a month. Since she had recently delivered a baby, she requested for an extension of a month before she could join so as to recover after the delivery and provide some time before she could travel with her baby to Kolkata . That was declined by the Vice Chancellor without any proper justification. In her place, the next candidate in the waiting list (Mr SK Chakravarti) was appointed. The honble members of the academic council should seek an explanation and investigate this issue.

b. Another example of a gross violation of UGC norms is that of Ms. Anupama Ghoshal, Assistant professor in Political Science. She has been writing for her pay protection for long, but surprisingly the application goes to Executive Council for decision. As per Schedule 14(2) and other applicable provisions of the NUJS Act, any matter relating to teachers qualification or emoluments should be first placed before the Academic Council for decision. Whatever decision is taken (based on UGC and other regulations applicable at that point of time) shall then be forwarded to the Executive Council to see whether the budget of the current financial year allows the same or not. Decisions regarding qualification of teachers and emoluments thereof, cannot be decided by the Executive Council unilaterally. This is clear from the reading of Schedule14 clause (2) of the NUJS Act, 1999 which says the Academic Council shall make recommendations to the Executive Council with regard to the creation, abolition or classification of teaching posts in the University and the emoluments and . Again under Schedule 9 clause (1) of the NUJS Act, 1999 it says the Executive Council shall. appoint, from time to time, the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar, the Librarian, Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and other members of the teaching staff..Provided that no action shall be taken by the Executive Council, except in the
5

cases covered by the second proviso, in regard to the number, qualifications and emoluments of teachers, otherwise than after consideration of the recommendations of the Academic Council.

The Honble members of the academic council should seek explanation about this irregularity, as well and as to why matters pertaining to emoluments were taken to the Executive Council instead of Academic Council.

6. BCI Rules adopted arbitrarily: As with many other academic matters, there have been sudden changes in the listing of compulsory and elective subjects. Illustratively, subjects such as Intellectual Property Rights, Banking Law, Agricultural Law, etc. were made compulsory from optional/elective papers. This is against the current BCI norms. And this decision was not taken after any consultative faculty meeting but appears to be taken by one Associate Professor and endorsed by the Vice Chancellor. Not too surprisingly, there is no written justification or rationale for this move. Please refer to Annexure F. We request the AC members to immediately review this and seek an explanation from the VC.

It bears noting that under the NUJS Act, the Vice Chancellor is the main executive functionary of the University who shall ensure that the provisions of this Act and the regulations are duly observed.

We earnestly beseech the Academic Council to please institute an Enquiry Committee at the earliest (constituted by retired judges of the highest integrity and/or senior academics from other Universities) to examine the above allegations and irregularities and to effectively redress our grievances. And to help take NUJS back to its former academic glory. In the hope that the Academic Council would help redress our concerns, we
6

remain,

Most sincerely yours,

Dr Arup Poddar Dr Sreenivasulu