Chemistry Professor's Appointment as English HOD Ignites Legal Firestorm at Gujarat University
In a remarkable academic controversy that has captured attention across educational circles, Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University (HNGU) found itself embroiled in multiple legal battles after appointing a chemistry professor as the in-charge head of its English department. The decision, which initially seemed like a temporary administrative arrangement, quickly escalated into a full-blown judicial confrontation, raising fundamental questions about academic leadership and subject expertise.
How a Science Teacher Landed in Literature's Leadership Role
The controversy began unfolding in June last year following the retirement of Adesh Pal, the former Head of Department for English. In what the university described as a temporary administrative measure, HNGU appointed Kokilaben Parmar, a faculty member from the chemistry department, as the in-charge HOD for English. This unexpected cross-disciplinary appointment immediately raised eyebrows among English department faculty members.
The situation took a legal turn when Hetal Patel, a faculty member within the English department, challenged the appointment before the Education Tribunal. Patel's challenge questioned the fundamental logic of placing a science professor in charge of a humanities department, particularly one requiring specialized knowledge of literature, critical theory, and language studies.
University's Defense and Judicial Intervention
HNGU's legal representative, Meet Shah, defended the university's decision by arguing that seniority among English department faculty members remained undetermined. Shah emphasized that Parmar's role was strictly limited to administrative affairs and did not involve academic decision-making. The university further contended that Patel's application to the tribunal was inappropriate since this represented an administrative decision rather than a service matter.
The Education Tribunal responded on October 10, 2025, by staying HNGU's controversial appointment. This decision prompted Parmar to approach the Gujarat High Court, challenging the stay order on grounds that she had not been heard by the tribunal before the stay was implemented. The High Court subsequently stayed the tribunal's order a week later, creating a complex legal standoff.
Court's Scrutiny and Fundamental Questions
During a crucial hearing on Tuesday, Justice Nirzar Desai posed pointed questions that cut to the heart of the controversy. "How can chemistry address academic concerns of a student of English literature?" the judge questioned, highlighting the apparent disconnect between the appointed HOD's expertise and the department's academic needs.
University representatives struggled to provide satisfactory answers, reiterating that Parmar's responsibilities were confined to administrative matters only. However, Justice Desai persisted with his line of questioning, asking how a department head unfamiliar with the subject could effectively assist students with their academic requirements and intellectual development.
Resolution and Continuing Controversy
By Friday, the university presented a draft order proposing to replace the chemistry professor with Tapal Chakrabarty, a faculty member from the English department. HNGU clarified that earlier replacement attempts had been hindered by the High Court's stay order. However, Patel objected to this new proposal as well, citing concerns about appointment rules and seniority considerations.
Following HNGU's revised decision, both Parmar and the university withdrew their petitions. Regarding Patel's objections to Chakrabarty as the new choice, the High Court maintained that "it shall be open for respondent No. 3, Ms. Patel, to challenge the same before the appropriate authority in accordance with law."
Broader Implications for Academic Administration
This case raises significant questions about university administration practices and the qualifications necessary for departmental leadership. While temporary administrative arrangements are common in academic institutions, this incident highlights the potential complications when such appointments cross disciplinary boundaries without clear academic justification.
The controversy also underscores the importance of transparent appointment processes and the need for academic leadership that aligns with departmental requirements. As educational institutions navigate administrative challenges, this case serves as a cautionary tale about balancing administrative convenience with academic integrity and student welfare.
The resolution, while addressing the immediate controversy, leaves open questions about proper procedures for temporary appointments and the criteria for departmental leadership in India's higher education system.
