The call for the two-day strike was given in view of the draft regulation of University Grants Commission (UGC) regarding the new pay scale of Central university teachers. As per the UGC proposals, the promotions will henceforth be based on the points which will be accrued by a teacher on the basis of published papers, books, participation in seminars and other similar academic activities.
Besides, the main point of contention is the requirement of existing readers facing another selection committee for being promoted to associate professorship. This is in contradiction with the official communique issued by the human resource development ministry which mentioned that all existing readers be placed in the new scale of associated professor without facing any selection committee, explained Dr SI Rizvi, reader in department of biochemistry, AU.
Meanwhile, the teachers of AU and its constituent colleges stayed away from teaching on Thursday. The members of AUCCTA held a meeting at the Sanskrit department and criticised the UGC for tempering with the notification of HRD ministry, dated December 31, 2008. The meeting also appealed to the AU vice-chancellor to initiate positive action on the long pending issues pertaining to teachers of not only AU but also of the constituent colleges.
Similarly, the members of the Allahabad University Teachers Association discussed the draft UGC notification of revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in universities and colleges. They expressed deep anguish over the anomalies in the draft notification. But, the standing committee of AUTA said that in view of the approaching examinations students should not be made to suffer.
Some teachers of the science faculty, however, continued with their work and supervised practical examinations in the labs.
Source : The Times of India.
9 comments :
IT IS UNJUSTIFIABKE ON THE PART OF TEACGERS TO OPPOSE THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSORSHIP. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD THAT A TEACHER WHO IS INVOLVED IN SO MANY PROCESSES OF STUDENT'S EVALUATION IS HIMSELF WEARY OF SUCH EVALUATION FOR HIMSELF. GOOD AND PERFORMACE ORIENTED HARDWORKING TEACHERS WILL NOT OPPOSE SUCH SELECTION PROCEDURES.IT IS ONLY USELESS TEACHERS WHO DONT DO THEIR JOBS WELL WILL OPPOSE SUCH PROCESSES.
Dear Prem,
I totally oppose your views.Don't think that every teacher who opposes the recent 'Draft,' is by himself or herself a 'useless teacher." For instance with all confidence at my might, I can tell you that and even judging by any parameter I am consider myself to be "good teacher."I have 32 years of service and still four more years to go and acquired a Doctorate degree nearly 15 years ago by working very hard under the guidance of a nationally renowned Research director.Then why teachers like me are opposing or rather just criticising the recent 'Draft?' Today my position is such that by 01-01-2009(the earliest date,I presume to be,by which only one can reach the level of a Professor,)I could complete all formalities so as to become eligible for a Professor post in a U.G. college,where I am expected to be the very first teacher to reach to that level.
But still I am opposing the draconian'Draft' just on principle alone.Have you found any such rules and regulations for any other category of employees? You know in our State of Andra Pradesh,we were already denied the fruits of our so-called "un-aided service" in aided under-graduate degree colleges on the pretext that only "aided service," meaning the date on which posts were admitted into grant-in-aid by the State Government, will be taken into consideration. Because of this,you know,many of us are not assured of our full pensionary benefit,gratutiy and even seniority within the same college.Today my position in my colleer is such that a treacher who is junior to me by one-and-half-years has become the Principal of the College because his post was admitted into grant-in-aid just a few months before admission of my post into grant-in-aid.We have already fought the un-aidede service issue unsucessfully rather, having been compelled to take the issue to the Supreme Court also.Still we are bearing all this because we have no option.
In these circumstances,when the UGC puts, quite unexpectedly all these rules,how do we feel? Any way it is better to leave the matter to rest because,already the UGC realised its impact and issued a clarification on 19 th itself.Had it not felt its 'Draft' draconian,would it have withdrawn it? Please don't generalise the issue.On the other hand,you please appeal to the Authorities to reward in a much better manner the academically creamy layer people or penalise the lethargic and those teachers who do not even take-up classes.But let nobody deny the vast multitude of teachers who are,I think honest and hard-working, their due share.
Dear Prem,
I am once again reproducing the same blog after editing it and removing some glaring spelling mistakes,lest I may be misunderstood.
I totally oppose your views.Don't think that every teacher who opposes the recent 'Draft,' is by himself or herself a 'useless teacher." For instance with all confidence at my command, I can tell you that and even judging by any parameter, I consider myself to be a "good teacher."I have 32 years of service and still four more years to go and acquired a Doctorate degree nearly 15 years ago by working very hard under the guidance of a nationally renowned Research director.Then why teachers like me are opposing or rather just criticising the recent 'Draft?' Today my position is such that by 01-01-2009(the earliest date,I presume to be,by which only one can reach the level of a Professor,)I could complete all formalities so as to become eligible for a Professor post in a U.G. college,where I am expected to be the very first teacher to reach to that level.
But still I am opposing the draconian'Draft' just on principle alone.Have you found any such rules and regulations for any other category of employees? You know in our State of Andra Pradesh,we were already denied the fruits of our so-called "un-aided service" in aided under-graduate degree colleges on the pretext that only "aided service," meaning the date on which posts were admitted into grant-in-aid by the State Government, will be taken into consideration. Because of this,you know,many of us are not assured of our full pensionary benefits including gratutiy and even seniority within the same college.Today my position in my college is such that a teacher who is junior to me by one-and-half-years has become the Principal of the College because his post was admitted into grant-in-aid just a few months before admission of my post into grant-in-aid.We have already fought the un-aided service issue unsucessfully rather, having been compelled to take the issue to the Supreme Court also.Still we are bearing all this because we have no option.
In these circumstances,when the UGC puts, quite unexpectedly all these rules,how do we feel? Any way it is better to leave the matter to rest because,already the UGC realised its impact and issued a clarification on 19 th itself.Had it not felt its 'Draft' draconian,would it have withdrawn it?
Please don't generalise the issue.On the other hand,you please appeal to the Authorities to reward in a much better manner the academically creamy layer people or penalise the lethargic and those teachers who do not even take-up classes.But let nobody deny the vast multitude of teachers who are,I think honest and hard-working,their due share.
Dear Dr. Subrahmanyam, My intention was never to under-rate good teachers. I do agree that injustice happens in promotions. I myself had been denied promotions delibrately by the authoritieshaving even afer 39 years of service, , having a good number of national and inter-national research publications, having a BIS code on my name having done cosultancy and brought a cash in flow of more than 2 crore rupees to the institute, having run a number of executive development programmes etc. am still an Associate Professor and that my student became a Professor 10 years ago and is now my HOD in a premier institute of Asia fame. The injustice was done to me because I could tell a spade a spade and also because there were no fixed norms for promotions or selection for higher posts and it was completely the sweet will of my then Director who did not like me speaking out the truth. So he bungled with the procedure and got me 'not selected' in the absence of any set norms. I too am about to retire in next four years and whatever happened to me now does not bother me much but what I am thinking is that the young faculty should not meet the same fate as I had. So a system in which the clear procedure is laid down and in which 'marks ' are alloted based on the performace will certainly be better than no system which allows the higher ups to manupulate in favour of their favourite but 'non performer' teacher in the absence of any 'guide-line' I hope a good and a performer teacher with such a bright record as yours will surely get benifitted by the new system having 'pre-set norms ' to judge the performance of a teacher and which will not allow any bungling in the promotions. In my opinion we should welcome the performance based assesment of teacher rather than every body getting promotion without working hard. Carrot and sticks - both should go simultaneously. Only the able people should reach to the highest post based on the performance assesed with set norms. I hope this clears my point. I however do not have any wish for any higher post. My career was blocked by some people and I do not have any ill will to them also but for the youngesters I do have concern that if they work hard and perform then 'marks based' assesment will ensure that they dont suffer as many of the old boys of our age and time have suffered. With due regards, - PREM
PUNJAB COMMERCE AND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
HEAD OFFICE: 94-B GOVERNMENT HOUSE BACK SIDE PETROL PUMP
FOUNTAIN CHOWK LUDHIANA (PUNJAB)
Phone: 0161-2400968, 098159-51299
PCMA/MHRD/21/02/1906 21-02-2009
To
Chairman,
University Grants Commission,
New Delhi
Reference: MHRD Notification on pay scales of University and college teachers.
Subject: Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) in service at Present- UGC draft notification not in concurrence with MHRD notification.
Sir,
It is humbly submitted before you the agony of the teachers working as Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) in service at Present (i.e. on 31-12-2008 the date of MHRD Notification) as follows:
In the MHRD Notification regarding the scheme of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges, No . 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I (i) dated 31-12-2008, page 3 Clause 2 (a) xi it is said that Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) in service at present shall continue to be designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade) or Readers, as the case may be, until they are placed in the pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 and re-designated as Associate Professor in the manner described in sub clause ( x ) i.e. for incumbent readers and Lecturer (Selection Grade) who have not completed 3 years in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-18300.
In the above notification no condition is imposed by the MHRD on the Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) who even acquire the grade of 12000-18300 after 01-01-2006 and suggest the same formula for these Readers/ lecturer (Selection Grade) to become Associate Professor as is applicable for the Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) who got the scale of 12000-18300 before 01-01-2006 and who have not completed 3 years in the present scale (Page 2 Clause 2 (a) point x and xi)
But the University Grants commission in negation of the above notification imposed certain conditions on all incumbent Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) and Readers/Lecturer (selection Grade) in service at present which relates to Academic performance indicators (API) and Weight age points (WP) required to develop performance appraisal scoring system (PASS) .
On the Protest of stake-holders UGC later withdraw the conditions on all the incumbent Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) through a clarification on the UGC website. But the point regarding the Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) in service at present has not been clarified. It is the demand of the teachers that Teachers who have been awarded the designation of Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) even after 01-01-2006 and are going to complete three years in service in the pay scale of 12000-18300 in 2008 or 2009 should also be re-designated as Associate professor as and when they complete the required three years of Service and should not be imposed any condition. This is because MHRD Notification Clause 2 (a) (xi) also suggests the same formula as it is for Incumbent Readers/ Lecturer (Selection Grade) who has not completed three years of Service in the pay scale of 12000-18300 on 01-01-2006. The Clause 2 (a) (xi) is reproduced here for quick reference:
" Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) in service at present shall continue to be designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade) or Readers, as the case may be, until they are placed in the pay Band of Rs. 37400-67000 and re-designated as Associate Professor in the manner described in (x) above"
It is therefore requested to you that kindly clarify this point also adopt the same formula for promoting the Reader/Lecturer (Selected Grade) in service at present as it is applicable for the incumbent Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) who have not completed three years of service in the pay scale of 12000-18300 as given in the clause 2 (a) (x) and as suggested in the Clause 2 (a) (xi) in the page 3 of the MHRD Notification.
If this is not clarified then a teachers who has got the Reader/Lecturer (Selection Grade) say in Feb 2006 will be at disadvantageous position and just for getting the grade two months late he/she has to face lot of hardships and secondly he/she will not have the ample time to cover the conditions put in by the UGC. The conditions put in by the UGC are also not in concurrence of the MHRD notification which is supreme document.
We also request you to get the exemption from conditions for all Readers/Lecturer (Selection Grade) who has been placed in the grade of 12000-18300 till the date of notification of MHRD i.e. 31-12-2008.
I hope you will fight our case and the true spirit of MHRD Notification will not be defeated.
(Prof. Ashwani Bhalla)
Executive Vice President
Punjab Commerce and Management Association
I do not agree with the request of Prof. Ashwani Bhalla on the last para of his letter.He says to exempt all Readers/Lectures(SG)from the conditions who have been promoted till the date of notification of MHRD i.e. 31.12.08.
Rather, I suggest to extend these conditions to all the Readers/Lectures(SG) who have been promoted to the scale of Rs.12000-18300 irrespective of the date of promotion.In addition, Ph D should not be mandatory for promotion to the post of Associate Prof. under CAS.
R K Kar
Asst. Professor,
IGIT,Sarang
Dhenkanal-759146
email:rabikkar@yahoo.co.in
One of the most affected lot are the readers who have spent 8 or more years.
They are ignored the most. Their promotions have been stopped by all universities taking the plea that new guidelines have not come
Solution till new guidelines comes is: Let them apply after 6 years as per the new MHRD notification . Existing procedure of promotion be followed.
Those already promoted as professors be backdated to the period when they completed 6 years. No seniority issues involved
ASSOCIATION OF LECTURERS IN GOVERNMENT COLLEGES (MES.GROUP-B)
(Recognized by Government of Maharashtra vide G.R.-RGA-1003/C.N.4/2003/16-A Dt.3.3.03)
(Affiliated to M.S.Federation of Gazetted Officers)
President S.S.Andhare
-----------------------------------
Address: Vidyut Nagar, V.M.V.Road, Amravati 444604 E-mail-sureshandhare@rediffmail.com
-----------------------------------
Date:17.11.2009
TO,
MHRD, UGC AND HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPT.OF MAHARASHTRA GOVT.
Subject-Amendment of Clause XXII of paragraph 7 regarding Incentives for Ph.D/M.Phil.
Reference-
1) Government of Maharashtra Higher & Technical Education Department, Resolution No.NGC 2009/(243/09)-UNI-1, Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai–400032. Date: 12th August 2009.
2) Government of India Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi. Letter No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I (i) dated 31.12.2008.
Respected Sir/Madam,
G.R. and Letter at 1 and 2 above variously extended the benefit of advance increments for possessing Ph.D./M.Phil and other higher qualifications.
Clause XXII of paragraph 7 regarding ‘incentives for Ph.D/M.Phil and other qualifications’ in above reads as under.
“For posts at the entry level where no such advance increments were admissible for possessing Ph.D/ M.Phil. under the earlier scheme, the benefits of 5 advance increments for possessing Ph.D./ M.Phil. shall be available to only those appointments which have been made on or after the coming into force of this Scheme.”
The above clause is unjust, insufficient and ambiguous in the light of following. Persons on any post other than Assistant Professor who acquired Ph.D./M.Phil degree either before entry in service, or during service, are appointed either by nomination or promotion with due permission of UGC, on the post of Assistant Professor and the benefit of protection of pay is extended to them as per rules of State. But consequent upon protection in pay, no benefit of 5/2 advance increments for Ph.D/M.Phil. is accorded to them on the assumption that they are not freshers and therefore their pay is not fixed on lowest (initial) pay in the pay scale meant for the post due to limited coverage (shortfall) of clauses I and II of para-7 of G.R./Letter cited in reference.
Similarly they are not entitled for 3/1 advance increments as per clauses IV and VIII, as Ph.D/M.Phil.degrees are not acquired during their service career as Assistant Professor.
Though the clause XXII a little bit covers the interests of said class of persons, but it leaves so many things unexplained therefore it appears to be unjust, insufficient and ambiguous. In order to cover the said class of persons undoubtedly under the umbrella of clause XXII it is requested to amend the clause XXII to give it the following shape and sense.
“For persons holding any post in previous (past) service cadre where the provision of award of advance increment for possessing Ph.D/M.Phil.was not available either at entry level or in-service career, under any earlier scheme i.e. Pay Commission, the benefit of 5/2 advance increments for possessing Ph.D/M.Phil respectively, shall be available to only those appointments either by nomination or promotion which have been made on or after the coming into force of this scheme.”
If the clause XXII is amended to this effect as mentioned above, it would benefit all the concerned persons including the members of this Association who have been promoted from junior college lecturer to Assistant Professor after 01.01.2006.Further it would be crystal clear leaving no room for doubt in future.
Thanks.
Amravati Date-17.11.2009 Yours faithfully
(S.S.Andhare)
PUNJAB COMMERCE AND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
IT IS UNFAIR NOW THAT UGC AND MHRD IS NOT RELEASING THE REGULATIONS TO BE FOLLOWED FOR PROMOTIONS UNDER CAS. wE APPEAL TO THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT TO RELEASE AND NOTIFY THE UGC REGULATIONS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.
Post a Comment