See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282866194

A firsthand experience of the rot in University

Grant Commission and University of Delhi an
example of human resource management in
higher education system of India

RESEARCH OCTOBER 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3842.8886

READS

113

1 AUTHOR:

Shashank Shekhar
University of Delhi
57 PUBLICATIONS 221 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Shashank Shekhar

Retrieved on: 09 March 2016
 A firsthand experience the rot in University Grant Commission and
University of Delhi an example of human resource management in higher
education system of India
Dr. Shashank Shekhar, Assistant Professor, Department of Geology, University of Delhi.

I write this article to narrate my firsthand experience of the way University Grant

Commission (UGC) and University of Delhi worked in one particular case related to me. My

well wishers advised against writing this article, they think I will offend UGC and my present

employer. But what about the fact that I have been offended. More so my conscience directed

me to narrate my experience in national interest, unless the working in these organizations

will never improve. It all began like this, that after working as Scientist for eight years in

Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Govt. of India, I joined University of Delhi on lien as

Assistant Professor (since march 2009). Some of my friends and family members never liked

this. Their objection was that after working for eight long years as Group A Gazetted officer I

should not join my alma mater as entry level teacher (Assistant Professor). I convinced them

that as per provisions of rule my past service as Scientist would be counted for career

progression. They had no option but to join me in my happiness as they knew that I enjoy

teaching and ambience of the class room. Besides I also convinced them that there is

similarity in the nature of work in the two organizations. As a Scientist at CGWB I used to

undertake theme based research and publish articles/reports, and get involved with

knowledge dissemination work. Similarly at University besides research and knowledge

dissemination one has to teach young students. Anyway finally I was absorbed at the

University, and my resignation accepted by my previous employer. It takes a lot of time

before government accepts resignation and perhaps more when service has to be counted in

different organization.

1
The issue:

I had plenty of works to do in my new assignment and it kept me busy. At the University, I

kept waiting to be asked to apply for counting of my past service for career progression. It

never happened, and so I wrote a letter to Registrar of the University. This was followed by a

formal application for promotion by counting my past service rendered in position equivalent

to my present one. The University made some clarifications from my previous employer and

finally nothing happened (see supplementary-1)? Though the clarification was already

available on the official website of CGWB (http://cgwb.gov.in/aboutcgwb.html). I did some

running around and I was told that the final clarification had to come from UGC. The

confusion for which UGC clarification was sought is quite interesting.

Before implementation of sixth pay commission the pay scale of lecturer (Rs:8000-13,500)

was same as that of Scientist B in central Government, so there was no confusion here. Thus

my service from 16-03-2001(Date of joining CGWB) to 01-01-2006 (date of implementation

of sixth pay commission) was straightaway eligible to be counted. But after implementation

of sixth pay commission teachers were given Academic Grade Pay of Rs.6000 in place of

Grade pay of Rs.5400 in central government. So after 01-01-2006, lecturer scale was revised

to Rs.15,600-39,100 (PB-3) with AGP of Rs.6000 and Scientist B grade pay was revised to

Rs.15,600-39,100 (PB-3) with grade pay of Rs.5400. To take care of this issue the relevant

UGC clause 10.0 of UGC regulations for appointment of teachers, 2010 (applicable in this

case) clearly mentions the word equivalent grade or of the pre revised scale of pay as the

post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) for matters related to counting of past service in

promotion. But the concerned section of University was perhaps unaware of this and the

matter was referred to UGC to clarify whether the service in the same pre-revised pay scale

can be counted for promotion after pay revision and grant of Academic grade pay to teachers.

That too when the provisions of this relevant UGC regulation was also followed by

2
University in salary matters after sixth pay commission. Later on the provisions were also

adopted by executive council of the University for career advancement by counting past

service. Anyway, the ball was in UGC court now. Till then I had a very high opinion about

UGC and faith in it. I thought in my mind that perhaps University wanted a nod on the issue

from UGC.

The first response by UGC and action by University of Delhi:

Approximately after a year from my first communication on the issue, I was informed by

Deputy Registrar of the University that as per clarification of UGC my past service rendered

in equivalent position cannot be counted for promotion. I was shocked to see the letter as I

had read the relevant rules myself and the rule said that service as a Scientist in same or

equivalent grade has to be counted. After some effort, I could get the original clarification

sent by UGC to University of Delhi. The UGC clarification had subject Promotion under

CAS 1998 from Lecturer to Lecturer in Sr. Scale . But the content of the reply was based

on text which read like this ------- as per existing guidelines of counting past service

rendered as Reader/Associate Professor------------(see supplementary-2). This was absolute

madness, UGC had referred guideline for counting past service of Reader to answer query for

promotion in lecturer grade. It was hard for me to believe this; I thought it must be a human

error!

I telephonically contacted the concerned Undersecretary of UGC who had signed the

letter. To my surprise she told that it was not a human error and she will not entertain any

communication from me. If anything had to be clarified it should come from University. I

tried to convince her that I am the concerned stake holder, but nothing helped. So I wrote a

letter and an email to UGC Chairman along with all supporting documents and apprised him

of the matter. I also requested for a correct decision on the matter. I informed UGC chairman

that I have wasted a lot of my spare time chasing files, writing letters, consulting people and

3
rules, which I could have utilized for enhancing my knowledge as a teacher and for

furtherance of my research. But there was no response.

I thought that UGC Chairman must be very busy, so I took an appointment from the

concerned Joint Secretary of UGC and explained her everything. She assured that a correct

reply on the matter would be issued from UGC. I felt relieved and after returning back from

UGC I wrote an email thanking her, with Chairman UGC in loop of the email. In between

University of Delhi again sent a clarification letter to UGC citing the discrepancy I had

pointed out to them. Days passed, I did not hear anything from UGC or University of Delhi

on the issue. On enquiry to UGC I was informed that a new Joint Secretary had taken charge

of the concerned section. I wrote an email to her explaining the matter and volunteered to

explain her in person if required. There was no response to my series of emails.

It was now clear that there was something messy. Perhaps some officers/officials of

UGC was indulging in malpractices, politicking and working with vested interest. I was

reminded of a television serial Office Office where the corruption nexus in office harasses

an individual till the time he or she succumbs and greases palm as facilitation fees. It was

difficult to believe this for UGC; the nodal organization for higher education in India! I

thought it must be incompetency at junior level which was vetted by senior officers without

meticulously reading the file noting.

Usefulness and limitation of RTI and further action

With this notion I filed a RTI request as concerned stake holder for a copy of the file noting

and all correspondences on the matter. I failed to get the information through RTI even after

first appeal. It was perhaps because the concerned Joint Secretary dealing with my file was

also the Appellate Authority for the first appeal. When there was no order on first appeal for

sufficiently long time, I had to approach CIC through second appeal, where the request for

admission of the second appeal is under consideration.

4
 In between as a test my wife filed RTI request to UGC for information about

condition for counting past service in a situation similar to mine. This time UGC was

perfectly alright, they referred the relevant applicable clause of the rule and suggested in their

reply that it can be downloaded from their website (see supplementary-3). The provisions of

the relevant rule clearly mention that past service as Scientist in equivalent grade or of the pre

revised scale of pay has to be counted for promotion (see supplementary-4).

The second response by UGC and action by University of Delhi:

I was just thinking what to do, when one day I was informed by University that even

second time UGC has reiterated its first reply. How can an organization give two different

responses on the same issue. The response to my wifes RTI was different from the official

response to University of Delhi. This was disgusting; UGC instead of fixing responsibility or

resolving the matter decided to shield the responsible individual and reiterated the old letter.

It is behaving like a king, who says that all good or bad words of mine are rule. An

intoxicating effect of power.

However, the same letter from University also asked me to reapply for counting of my

past service under CAS 2010 (a new guideline). I must mention that all earlier clarification

from UGC was sough under CAS 1998 (the old guideline). The letter was in middle of

semester where I had around 24 classes per week along with responsibility of guiding four

Ph.D scholars, two masters dissertations and about 3-4 M.Phil scholars. So I took around a

twenty four days and finally submitted the required form in April 2015 which needed

exhaustive database for the period 2001-2007. From April 2015 to October 2015, the file is

still taking rounds of table for clarification whether my past service can be counted for

promotion. After a verbal enquiry from different sections what I could gather was that the

5
vague and absurd UGC clarification on the matter following provisions of CAS 1998 was

hindrance in processing my application for promotion under provisions of CAS 2010.

Discussions

The issue is now why university referred the file to UGC for its opinion; when it was

already clarified vide a UGC regulation available on UGC website. That too when provisions

of UGC regulation were adopted by executive council of the University. However even if the

clarification was sought, why UGC instead of advising university to see the relevant

applicable clause of UGC regulation for the matter, replied vague and absurd as mentioned

above? It is a matter of investigation. It raises doubt whether there was connivance between

the concerned sections of UGC and University of Delhi to deliberately harass an individual or

complicate the issue so that money can be extorted for settling the issue. May be I did not

offer to pay something for the work, so it was deliberately complicated. I am not sure but the

concerned agencies need to come clear on this.

First it is difficult to understand how can an absurd and vague reply by UGC under

provisions of CAS 1998 be used to obstruct processing of an application for career

advancement under provisions of CAS 2010? That too when provisions for counting of past

service applicable to cases under provisions of CAS 2010 has already been adopted by

executive council of the University of Delhi (see supplementary-5). But the concerned

section of the University instead of following its own executive council adopted rule

applicable in the matter, keeps referring to the vague and absurd clarification of UGC under

provisions of a non-relevant old rule and the file keeps moving from desk to desk for

clarification.

This shows how UGC has proved itself as best facilitator of higher education in India

and an excellent human resource manager! Not to forget my alma mater the number one

6
University in India, has forgotten that University of Delhi is governed by rules adopted

through its statutory bodies.

It is not the fault in organization; the fault is with kind of people handling assignments

at different levels. Either there is incompetency, lack of leadership quality and inappropriate

mindset or there is systematic corruption. I do not know what is the matter, but it needs to be

addressed by MHRD, UGC and University of Delhi. It raises a question on the existence of

establishment section in a University. Such sections exists to take care of human resource

related issues so that a teacher in a university can concentrate on his or her teaching and

research activity. But what is happening is just the opposite. Similarly UGC appears to have

taken role of obstructionist then a facilitator in such issues. Whither are we moving?

My lawyer friends advised for approaching judiciary. I know I will have to do it once

there is final denial from University. But I will bear the cost of litigation from my salary,

what about the chain of responsible officers/officials on the other side. For their act leading to

litigation both UGC and University will pay money through government exchequer. Hard

earned tax payers money will be spent to defend them. Let us say, if the judiciary gives

verdict in my favor, will the whole cost of litigation be charged upon the officers involved?

If not then how is the accountability fixed on the issue? Such acts will be repeated, some

provisions need to be adopted in governance to prevent this. Who is ultimately responsible?

Judiciary is already overburdened, how do we go ahead in preventing litigation

arising out of incompetency of officers or because of vested interest. What is the deterrence,

the civil society and the Government needs to think on this.

7
- Supplementary Information -1

No~~-1331/01-Sci.Es!b. - 733
Government of India,
Ministry of Water l.(esources,
Centrai Ground Water Board,
Bhujal I3hawan,
Nil IJ, Faridabad 121001

[)atcd:
ZB JAN Z014
The J\ssistant Registrar (l~stab-T),
University of Delhi,
I)clhi 110007

SUB:- Clarification in connection with promotion of Dr. Shashank Shekhar,

lecturer to Lecturer in senior scale - reg.

Sir,
I am directed to refer your letter No .Estab(T)/V/001/2009/Geol -02/52136
dated 12.12.2013 on the subject cited above and to inform that the Central Ground
Water Board is a Scientific organization under the Ministry of Water I~esources and
the qualification required for the post of Scientist- B(Hydrogeology discipline) in
CGWB may be kindly be perused from the enclosed copy of relevant Recruitment
l'(ulcs.
Yours faithfully

(S.~~I
Encls J\s above

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
 Supplementary Information -2

....",~
",,11m "l'"

University Grant s CommIssion

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delh i - 110002

No.F.2- 1I2007(PS/Misc) May , 2014

Th e Assistant Reg istrar

Delh i University
r
",
- - ,'tJ
Delhi - 110007

Subject : Promotion under CAS-1998 from Lecturer t o Lecturer in Sr .lScale - reg.

Sir,

With reference t o your letter No. Estab(T)/v/001/2009/ Geol/-2/De lhi dated

3'd April , 2013 on t he subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that as per
existing guidelines of count ing of past service, rendered as Reader/Associate
Professor (In t he scale of pay of Rs . 3700-5700 or revised Rs. 12,000-18,300) in any
other recognized Uni versity/col lege can be counted for , under CAS of a teacher as
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor/Lecturer in Senior
Scale/Selection ,3rode. Hence Dr . Shekhar's ser vices cannot be counted fo r promotion
und er CAS as he'n not in th e scale of pay.

Furthe r , it is also informed that as per" UGC Notification 1998 under clause
9.0 .0 : MPS of 1983 which was termi nat ed in 1987 for those who did not opt for
it, stands abol ished . However , Professors who we re governed by the Old merit
promotion scheme of 1987 would be e ligible fo r fu ll scale of Pr~fessor w.e .f.
1.1.1996 . The University can discuss in its academic body and decide inte r -se -
sen iority bet wee n the merit promotes and direct recruits , based on t he date of
selection , and as per the eXisting/amended Acts and Statutes of the University" .

0-.. Yours fai t hf ully

,
~v/ ~"
(Reeta Gael)
Under Secret ary

/~7
 Supplementary Inmformation-3

Final Status of UGCOM/R/2014/60136

Applicant Name Poonam Sinha

Date of receipt 07/10/2014
Request Filed With University Grants Commission (UGC)
Counting of past service for promotion in a Central University:

As pr UGC regulation No. F.3-1/2009 dated 30-06-2010 or any other

regulation/ subsequent regulation effective as on date for the matter
it may kindly be informed that:

1.Can past service of an Assistant Professor in Central University ,

who worked as Scientist B for eight years (Group A Gazetted
permanent officer) in pay band of Rs.15,600-39,100 with grade pay
of Rs.5400 (Pre revised Rs.8000-13,500) be counted for the purpose
of promotion from Assistant Professor of a Central University in pay
band of Rs.15,600-39,100 (PB-3) with AGP of Rs.6000 (Pre revised
Rs.8000-13,500) to Senior Assistant Professor of a Central
University in pay band of Rs.15,600-39,100 (PB-3) with AGP of
Rs.7000.

The candidate in this case also fulfills the following criteria:

Text of Application
a.The candidate for direct recruitment had applied through proper
channel and his previous organization before joining Central
University was a scientific organization.

b.The applicable essential qualification for recruitment as Scientist

B (past service) was Master of Science degree. A candidate
possessing the required qualification gets appointed as Scientist B
in this case only after he or she is successful in merit list of written
examination followed by interview conducted by Union Public
Service Commission.

c.The information may be provided with the assumption that

appointment of the candidate as Assistant Professor in the Central
University was in accordance with the prescribed selection
procedure as laid down in regulation of the University for such
Appointments, as is the case in most of the cases.
Request document (if any) document not provided
Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF
Date of Action 08/10/2014
Reply :- Madam,

The terms and conditions for counting of past service for

recruitment and promotion of teaching posts are available under
Clause 10.0 of UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for
Remarks Appointment of Teachers and other Academic staff in Universities
and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in
Higher Education., 2010. You may refer UGC website
www.ugc.ac.in where these regulations have been uploaded in
downloadable form.
 Final Status of UGCOM/R/2014/60294

Applicant Name Poonam Sinha

Date of receipt 21/10/2014
Request Filed With University Grants Commission (UGC)
Clarification about equivalent pay scale for counting of past service
for promotion in a Central University.

In context of reply dated 08-10-2014 for RTI registration number-

UGCOM/R/2014/60136 dated 07/10/2014, the following may kindly
be informed:

Text of Application Is the service rendered as Scientist B in pay band of Rs.15,600-

39,100 with grade pay of Rs.5,400 (Pre revised Rs.8000-13,500) as
previous regular service in Scientific organization of Central
Government (Government of India) such as CSIR, DRDO, UGC etc. is
equivalent to Assistant Professor of a Central University in pay band
of Rs.15,600-39,100 (PB-3) with AGP of Rs.6000 (Pre revised
Rs.8000-13,500) for the purpose of counting past service for direct
recruitment and promotion under CAS as per the existing regulation.
Request document (if any)
Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF
Date of Action 16/11/2014
Reply :- Sir,
The conditions for counting of past service are defined under clause
10.0 of ugc regulations for appointment of teachers, 2010. These
regulations are available on ugc website www.ugc.ac.in. in
Remarks downloadable form.
With regards
Satish Kumar
Under Secretary and PIO
 1 Supplementary Information-4

2 (The relevant clause of the regulation is reproduced below)

3 UGC REGULATIONS
4 ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
5 FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES
6 AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINATAINANCE OF STANDARDS IN
7 HIGHER EDUCATION
8 2010
9 University Grants Commission
10 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
11 New Delhi-11002
12 No.F.3-1/2009 30 June, 2010
13

14

15 10.0 COUNTING OF PAST SERVICES FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT AND

16 PROMOTION UNDER CAS
17
18 10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant
19 Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University,
20 College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such
21 as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be
22 counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as
23 Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature
24 these posts are described as per Appendix III Table No. II provided that:
25
26 (a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the
27 qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate
28 Professor and Professor as the case may be.
29
30 (b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as
31 the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and
32 Professor.
33
34 (c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only.
35
36 (d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor
37 should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for
38 appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and
39 Professor, as the case may be.
40
41 (e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as
42 laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central
43 Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.
44

1
45 (f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad
46 hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary
47 service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that:
48
49 (i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;
50
51 (ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly
52 constituted Selection Committee; and
53
54 (iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to
55 the adhoc or temporary service, without any break.
56

57 (g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of

58 the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local
59 body/Government), was considered for counting past services under this clause.

2
 1 Supplementary Information-5
2 (Reproduced from original)
3
4 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5 No.CNC-II/093/201
6 Delhi, the 1st November, 2013
7 NOTIFICATION
8
9 The Amendments to Ordinances and Appendices to Ordinances of the University
10 passed by the Executive Council at its meeting held on 17th August, 2013 are notified
11 for information.
12
13 Relevant clause is given below
14
15 Explanations:
16
17 For the purpose of upward movement from AGP of Rs. 6,000/- to AGP of Rs. 7,000/-:
18
19 (i) Service will mean teaching experience of Under-graduate or Post-graduate
20 classes of the University of Delhi or its Colleges or of any other recognised
21 University/College/Institution in India or abroad and/or research experience in
22 the National Laboratories or R & D organisations (CSIR/ICAR, DRDO,
23 UGC, etc.).
24
25 (ii) It will include teaching experience as Assistant Professor/Director of Physical
26 Education in Colleges/Assistant Director of Physical Education in the
27 University (Permanent/Temporary/ad hoc)/ Demonstrator and research
28 experience as Research Scientist/ Research Associate/Pool Officer.
29
30 (iii) Teaching experience includes all period spent on leave, except extraordinary
31 leave for non-academic purposes.
32
33
34 (iv) Teachers holding D.Litt./D.Sc. will be considered at par with Ph.D.
35
36 Note: In the case of any dispute with regard to information given by the teacher in his
37 self-assessment proforma, the decision of the screening cum-evaluation/selection
38 committee shall be final.