The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has come down heavily on Nagpur University for its persistent failure to fill long-standing vacant teaching positions. On Friday, the court demanded clear answers from the university administration regarding the acute shortage of full-time professors, particularly at the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Law College.
Court Expresses Strong Displeasure Over Recruitment Delays
A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by petitioner Ashok Karandikar. The PIL highlighted the severe lack of permanent faculty and its detrimental impact on the quality of education. The judges questioned why the university could not issue department-wise advertisements to address the critical staffing crisis.
The bench sought a detailed explanation from the university on the rules governing recruitment advertisements and the reasons for the continued delay in filling posts that have already been sanctioned. The court had previously described the situation as a serious erosion of teaching standards due to chronic understaffing.
University's Reasons and Court's Rebuttal
During the proceedings, the counsel for Nagpur University presented several justifications for the stalled recruitment. It was informed that advertisements were initially issued to fill 92 vacant teaching posts across various departments, including the then-affiliated Laxminarayan Institute of Technology (LIT). However, the process stalled after LIT was granted independent university status.
The university also stated that it received approval to issue only a single, combined advertisement for vacancies across all departments. It cited a government ban on fresh recruitment imposed in 2015 and a subsequent 2022 government resolution that allowed filling only 80% of sanctioned posts as major hurdles slowing down the process.
The court, however, rejected these arguments outright. The bench made an oral observation, stating, "One department becoming independent does not mean that vacancies in other departments should not be filled. This cannot be a valid reason." The judges called the university's approach "surprising" and declared it was "against the interests of students."
Focus on Student Welfare and Academic Standards
Expressing strong displeasure, the judges accused the university of shirking its responsibility. "You are shirking your responsibility. We will not allow you to go ahead with several vacancies of teachers and causing losses to students and not maintaining the standard of the law college," the bench remarked.
The court underlined that sanctioned posts are meant to be filled to ensure academic continuity and quality. This is especially crucial in professional courses like law, where the absence of full-time faculty directly and negatively affects students' education. The court signaled that procedural excuses could not be allowed to override students' fundamental rights to quality education.
The bench directed the NU registrar to disclose the number of approved posts in the law college and the current reliance on visiting faculty. The judges have ordered the university to file a clear response justifying its position and explaining any legal or administrative constraints on issuing separate advertisements for different departments.
Advocate Sandeep Tiwari, appearing for the petitioner, pressed the court to issue firm directions. He argued that years of delay have normalized an unhealthy dependence on temporary and visiting faculty, which fundamentally undermines institutional standards and the value of the degree.
