UGC Subject Code Ruling Questions DAV College Professor's 2017 Appointment in Chandigarh
A recent clarification from the University Grants Commission (UGC) has cast significant doubt on the eligibility of a history faculty member at DAV College in Chandigarh, raising serious questions about how his appointment was originally approved back in 2017. The controversy centers around Suraj Narayan, whose teaching qualifications have now been scrutinized under UGC's strict subject code guidelines.
UGC's Subject Code Clarification Creates Eligibility Crisis
In a crucial clarification issued on September 25, 2025, the UGC responded to a specific query from Panjab University regarding subject-specific teaching qualifications. The commission explicitly stated that eligibility to teach any subject at the university level is governed by postgraduate qualifications that must correspond to precise UGC subject codes. According to this clarification, history carries subject code 6, while Suraj Narayan's postgraduate qualification carries subject code 67.
The UGC concluded that Narayan does not possess the requisite postgraduate qualification in history for teaching the subject at the UGC level, creating a fundamental eligibility issue that has reverberated through Panjab University's administrative channels.
Departmental Committee Unanimously Confirms Ineligibility
The matter came to light during routine scrutiny of Narayan's application for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). This prompted the case to be placed before the Joint Administrative and Academic Committee (JAAC) of Panjab University's history department, which convened a crucial meeting on November 24, 2025.
Ten members, including senior faculty representatives, attended this significant meeting. According to the official minutes recorded during the session, the committee unanimously agreed that "as per UGC decision, Suraj Narayan doesn't qualify for teaching as assistant professor in history" and explicitly noted that his postgraduate degree falls within a discipline other than history.
The committee reached a definitive conclusion that CAS promotion in the history subject would not be valid under established UGC norms, effectively halting any advancement under the career scheme while raising broader questions about his original appointment.
Grant-in-Aid Scheme Adds Financial Scrutiny to Appointment
The Joint Administrative and Academic Committee's observations were specifically made within the context of CAS eligibility and teaching qualifications. However, the continuation of Narayan's appointment has drawn additional scrutiny due to the financial structure supporting his position.
The post falls under Chandigarh administration's 95% Grant-in-Aid scheme, meaning that the substantial majority of the salary is paid directly from public funds. This financial arrangement has intensified concerns about proper oversight and accountability in faculty appointments.
Activist Files Complaint Seeking Comprehensive Inquiry
Chandigarh-based activist Dr. Rajinder K. Singla has submitted a formal complaint to the Panjab University chancellor, demanding a thorough investigation into multiple aspects of this case. His complaint specifically seeks answers to how the original approval was granted in 2017 and why no corrective action was taken when the eligibility issue first surfaced during CAS scrutiny.
Dr. Singla has also raised significant concerns regarding the continued grant-in-aid payments being made for a position now questioned by both UGC guidelines and the university's own departmental committee.
University Officials Confirm Ongoing Examination
Panjab University officials have acknowledged that both the UGC clarification and the departmental committee proceedings are currently "under examination." University representatives have confirmed that no final decision has been taken regarding the continuation of Suraj Narayan's appointment while these examinations proceed.
Despite multiple attempts by various parties to contact him, Suraj Narayan could not be reached for his version of events or response to the allegations regarding his teaching qualifications and appointment history.
This developing situation highlights the importance of strict adherence to UGC guidelines in faculty appointments and raises questions about institutional oversight mechanisms in higher education institutions receiving public funding through grant-in-aid schemes.
