JNU teachers say President's office may be drawn into legal dispute, seek VC's removal in third letter

The Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) has written to President Droupadi Murmu for the third time this year, stating that the crisis of governance at the university has worsened. There has been “no corrective action” taken by the JNU vice-chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit over the appeals made by the teachers’ association, they alleged.

The most recent allegation centres around the denial of promotion of a senior faculty member who retired at the end of September while her promotion application has been pending since 2019. The JNUTA letter dated November 21 claimed that the promotion was not given despite a public assurance made by the vice-chancellor.

The JNU teachers alleged that the VC has gone back on her promise to process her promotion and “allow her to retire with dignity”.

“Her date of retirement has come and gone, but the promotion has not been processed and she was given no opportunity to appear before a duly constituted Selection Committee” – this they said is a gross violation of fundamental rights, Article 14 and Article 16 (1) and cited the Supreme Court ruling in Ajit Singh vs State of Punjab 1999 which said:

“If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right.”

There was no official communication from the JNU administration that declared her ineligible for promotion, the association said, adding that the decision to not constitute a selection committee was taken out of “spite guided by purely petty considerations”.

“As this decision was that of the Vice Chancellor, we ask you to consider whether you can exonerate such an act of violation of a fundamental right on her part?”

JNUTA accuses VC of manipulating court proceedings

The association also accused the VC of manipulating the university court proceedings regarding the “unjustifiable termination” of a young faculty member and scratching out the observations made at the October 10 meeting, for her personal vendetta.

“We say this with a full sense of responsibility as we are confident that whatever we are saying will be completely vindicated by the recording of the proceedings of the meeting which is available with the JNU Administration,” they said.

The letter alleged that the termination reached the university court only because the JNU VC invoked Section 11(2) of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966, as a “face-saving tactic” as her decision was “devoid of legal merit”.

According to them, the VC found out during the September 19 University court meeting that a personal appearance could not influence the outcome and began challenging the court’s authority to review the decision by invoking an arbitration clause in teachers’ employment contracts to prevent it from examining the issue.

It further warned that if the clause were operationalised, it would draw the President’s office into the legal dispute, since the Visitor is part of the arbitration mechanism under the contract.

The teachers questioned whether the JNU VC had sought the President’s approval before presenting this position before the Delhi High Court.

Also read ‘Severe crisis’ in JNU? Academic funds cut by over 36%; women, research students drop to 40%, says JNUTA

'Corruption' in JNU faculty appointment

In another serious allegation, the JNUTA claimed that faculty recruitments may involve corruption and alleged that the past service in a position with a pay level several notches below that of assistant professor “may have been illegitimately counted” for determining eligibility.

They said that the candidates even work as freelance translators before qualifying the National Eligibility Test (NET) or completing PhD. The letter pointed out that the beneficiaries are “related and connected” to the Director of the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), appointed by the VC.

The matter has also been raised with the university and the members of the Executive Council, the teachers informed the President.

However, “the VC simply pushed through the decision to ‘approve’ the appointment without permitting any discussion. Was this not a tacit admission of guilt that things were not all above board?” they asked.

“As the Vice Chancellor is appointed by the Visitor, and holds office at the Visitor’s pleasure, the Vice Chancellor’s conduct is also undermining the legitimacy of the highest Constitutional office of the country. We urge you therefore once again to exercise your powers to take the step necessary to bring an end to this destruction, namely the removal of the Vice Chancellor from office,” the letter read.