High Court shocked by Anna University method of hiring faculty on hourly basis

Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued the direction while passing orders on a plea questioning the non-extension of the period for certain candidates appointed on temporary basis as well as seeking regularisation.

Holding that the facts of the case clearly revealed the chaotic situation prevailing in Anna University, he said, “It is shocking that a university of this stature, having nearly 13 constituent colleges of engineering and 3 regional campuses, is functioning with a strength of only 556 teaching staff employed on a regular basis from 2011 onwards and the appointment of teaching faculty has always been on temporary basis for nearly 10 years.”

As many as 310 teaching fellows were working on a temporary basis on consolidated pay as on date, the judge noted. “It is even more shocking that the teaching faculty was engaged on an hourly basis and fortunately it is informed that this practice has been dispensed with by the university. This is not the manner in which a reputed university like Anna University should be functioning,” he said.

“The teaching faculty that is available today [556 regularly employed and 310 temporarily employed] is nowhere near the requirement under AICTE regulations. It is surprising that students who come out of this university are faring well despite the non-availability of sufficient teaching faculty. Either the students are extremely bright or the available faculty is performing an extraordinary task by providing excellent teaching skills. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that the university will have to take immediate steps on a war footing to fill up the vacancies through regular appointments,” Justice Anand Venkatesh held.

Further, pointing out that the university has not followed the regulations relating to the maximum percentage up to which contract teachers could be appointed and also in terms of the payment made to them under the contract, the judge directed it to continue with the services of the petitioners as it was done earlier, as there was no reason to disengage them all of a sudden.

Though called ‘teaching fellows’, the petitioners were actually performing the duties of assistant professors with all qualifications. Therefore, they should have been paid the emoluments on a par with the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed assistant professor, the court said.

However, the judge expressed disinclination in granting the demand to regularise their service as assistant professor. “Where the temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for a long time, the court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly considers regularisation. In the present case, the issue will not be confined only to the petitioners and it involves nearly 310 temporary teaching fellows. Therefore, mechanically ordering regularisation will have a cascading effect on the cadre strength, policy of reservation and financial implications,” he said.