FOCUS: JNU teachers on the violation of Constitutional provisions regarding reservations. But the AC is not allowed to discuss the motion.

JNU teachers have been pointing out to the JNU administration that its admission policy is in violation of the reservation policy of the govt of India and the UGC Guidelines 2016. No one was allowed to speak on these matters because Rector-I thinks that all matters pertaining to the JNU admission policy are sub judice (which does not, as per our VC’s belief, prevent him from declaring them passed!). JNU teachers do not agree.

Subject: Part A Meeting, Agenda Item No 2, points no. 4 & 8, and Agenda Item No. 3(iv), with respect to violation of Constitutional provisions of reservation and affirmative action

Dear Chairperson/Secretary

We the undersigned members of the Academic Council, are deeply disturbed by the unilateral decisions taken by the Chairperson of the Academic Council and the University Administration in violating the Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admission) Act, 2006, and additional provisions of affirmative action duly approved by theAcademic Council.

  1. This reduction of intake has created a situation that actively prevents the strict implementation of reservation for SC/STs, as the reservation of one SC seat in a programme of study requires an intake of at least 7 students in that programme, and an intake of 14 students is needed to guarantee reservation to one ST student. The drastic cuts in seats in the few programmes that have M.Tech./M.Phil./PhD research degree admissions entails that even the promise in the e-prospectus of reservation of 36 sears for SCs and 18 for STs cannot be realised, as in most cases, the seats for admission do
    not number over 14. At the maximum, it is therefore highly likely that only 20 seats for
    SCs and 4 seats for STs may ultimately end up as reserved.  
  2. Such a reduction in intake of SC/ST students is in contravention of the UGC Letter reg.:
    Implementation of reservation policy of Government of India (SC/ST/OBC/PWD) in
    Central Universities, published on 17/09/2013 and the UGC Letter reg.: Implementation of Reservation Policy in Admission and Appointment, published on 13/6/2016. It also violates Constitutional provisions for access to higher education by SC/STs, particularly Article 15[1] and 15[4] and violates the letter and spirit of the Delhi High Court judgment, Gautam Sharma v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors (dated 19.1.2016).  
  3. Furthermore, the high qualifying marks for the written entrance examination will have the effect of restricting actual admissions even further. Such an all-round failure to realise Constitutional provisions for access to higher education by SC/STs must be averted.  
  4. The UGC Regulations 2016 also do not bar the university from having its own affirmative action policy as part of the admission policy. But the administration has shown unseemly haste in dismantling the Reservation Policy passed by Parliament and the affirmative action policies evolved by JNU, by completely misinterpreting the 2016 UGC Regulations. 
  5. We also wish to draw your attention to the recent statements of the Acting Chairman of the UGC in this regard, as well as the orders of the High Court bench of the Delhi Court, which have stayed the judgment of the single judge which was used by the administration to misinterpret the legal and substantive position with respect to reservations and other issues.  
  6. We therefore urge the Council to not accept the seat cuts imposed by the administration
    as they are violative of the Constitutional provisions with respect to reservations and to
    immediately restore:  
  • The assignment of deprivation points, as employed in the 2016-17 admissions, to all
    applicants for admission to the research programmes of the University.
  • The qualifying marks for SC/ST/OBC candidates, as employed for the 2016-17 admissions, for the written entrance examination for admission to the research programmes of the University. 

We therefore request you to:

  • Initiate a full discussion on these items;  
  • Kindly record our views stated in this memorandum. c.
  • Call a vote on the issue; failing which, record our views as a note of dissent against each of our names.  
Advertisements

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s