Reclaim DUTA as a site of teachers’ struggles! 

We are witness to the perverse academic restructuring in gradual rolling out of NEP. However, academic restructuring is only one part of NEP.  Restructuring of institutions, governance, funding and the regulatory framework are the major components. These will fundamentally alter the character of institutions and the role and relationship of teachers with the institutions. The Draft UGC Regulations & Guidelines 2025 incorporate the NEP design in a deliberate manner, different from the earlier governmental assaults on promotion and workload.

.That ability has been severely compromised. The DUTA has been reduced to a pocket organisation serving the DU administration and the Union government. It neglects to fight for teachers’ rights and academic integrity. It cannot displease the authorities. It has become a lower-order power centre, not their collective instrument for struggle, gradually making them voiceless and vulnerable.

Draft UGC Regulations 2025: DUTA’s silence on burdening teachers with resource mobilisation.

A teacher requires 4 out of 9 contributions in the following list judged noteworthy for every promotion

Draft UGC Guidelines 2025: Workload Increased & Redefined

WORKLOAD: Empowerment of each administration (eventually, BoG) to deploy its resources efficiently for market competition.

There was a time when the UGC regulations forbade making a teacher to teach more than 3 hours a day. Now, empowering the administration of each institution to deploy teachers for not less than 8 hours a day:

• ⁠“Considering the shifting of focus from classroom education to competency and outcome-based learning, the work commitments of the teachers in full employment should not be less than eight hours per working day.” (4.1)

• “The time spent by teachers in teaching-learning processes and the time used for research and other academic activities shall be decided by the HEIs…” (4.2)

• ⁠“teaching-learning processes include …, internship, apprenticeship, etc.” (4.1).
• ⁠“Teachers are required to be present at the workplace of the HEI during working hours.” (4.2).

The NDTF does not even acknowledge that these changes have been proposed. Forget exposing the implied destruction of education. A Sarkari group in leadership will not allow the DUTA to challenge its masters.

DU is en route to self-financing; BoGs loom on the horizon.

Due to the NEP mandate, the Tripartite Agreement, the grants of Category 1 under Graded Autonomy and the status of Institute of Eminence, the university has been forced towards self-financing. Setting up HEFA signalled a switch from grants to loans. The university has adopted an IDP as required by the NEP to free itself, over time,  of government funding. The Parliament has been recently informed that the legislation required for institutional, governance and regulatory changes through HECI Bill is imminent. BoG and its powers will be defined. The  Draft Regulations & Guidelines have already proposed handing over the determination of workload and promotion/appointment on the basis of market-friendliness of teaching personnels to the administrations.

Various steps towards NEP restructuring have preceded its finalisation

The NEP, at its core, aims to make the policy of market determination, put forth in the NITI Aayog’s Draft Three Year Action Agenda for the period 2017-18 to 2019-20 dated 23 April 2017 in 2017, more compelling through laws.

The Economic Survey 2024-25 is explicit the NEP is about competition among institutions in the market, where each tailors its activities, offerings, and personnel policies (pay, promotion policy, etc.) as any other business unit provides the best outcome:

“There is no greater accountability than that demanded by the market through prospective faculty, students, their parents, and collaborating academic and non-academic institutions.”

The Action Agenda had recommended several steps towards this aim even before any NEP could be put in place to ensure a new legal framework. Accordingly, the following were introduced:

SWAYAM: For a switch to online education.

HEFA: Switch for grants to loans for infrastructure.

Graded Autonomy: Grants the rights to earn revenue through fees, courses, collaboration with industries.

Tripartite Agreement: To make universities meet a greater share of their expenditure through revenue generation.

Institute of Eminence: Requires the university to make huge expenditure, 50% to 75% of which the government will compensate subject to a limit of 1000 crore rupees.

NRF: Diversion of funds available for research to an instrument of competitive bidding where the NRF decides which research gets funded according to governmental / industry priorities.

 
The looming threat of the HECI Bill & legal sanction for BoGs

Five years after the adoption of the NEP, the government is now moving to enact laws through the Parliament. The NEP document envisioned having BoGs for all HEIs, in batches, within a 15-year period. Following points are about Section 19 of the NEP.

1. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) will be governed by a Board of Governors (BoG) consisting of nominated outsiders.
2. BoGs will be empowered to govern freely without external interference. Earlier Regulations regarding degrees, infrastructure, teacher requirements, pay, promotion, etc. will not apply.
3. Ministers and Corporates praised this as an extension of the 1991 liberalisation that freed businesses from government control and labour laws.
4. The new law is to set aside all existing provisions that limit the powers of the BoGs to govern freely. A BoG’s accountability is limited to making self-disclosures of relevant records to stakeholders.
5. BoGs will define merit and competency to identify, select, and nurture institutional leaders, avoiding choice based on seniority or elections.
6. Funding for HEIs will become a performance-based incentive model: “adequate” (not full) government funding based on IDP, initiatives, and assessed progress towards goals set in the IDP.
7. Institutions have to generate revenue to meet the rest of their financial requirements if they receive government-determined “adequate” funding. Those not “good enough” will receive “inadequate” funding.

DUTA has pushed back the Government on workload issue twice in the past

2002: DUTA President: Shaswati Mazumdar (DTF). Issue: govt ordering increase in teachers’ workload and declaring 35 % surplus. Massive agitation.

2016: DUTA President: Nandita Narain (DTF). Issue: govt ordering increase in teachers’ workload and an an equally befitting response.

Let us also recall that the API based PBAS system, introduced in the 2010 Regulations, virtually stopped promotions. Huge and repeated protest actions by the DUTA and jointly with FEDCUTA and AIFUCTO forced the government to get rid of it.

We must confront the policy assault, not pretend it away

Any possibility of reversing national policies is only possible through a sustained campaign and nationwide joint actions. Even at the university level, not letting up the exposure of FYUP in 2013 put pressure on political parties: AAP opposed it and then the Delhi State BJP had to switch from support to opposition. Ignoring such policy assaults opens the possibilities for more ruthless marketisation drive. Unfortunately, the NDTF leadership of the DUTA refused to reach out to the public about the disastrous policy direction. Public concern is a potent weapon against national policies.

डूटा को फिर से बनाएँ शिक्षकों की असली आवाज़!

सार्वजनिक उच्च शिक्षा की रक्षा के लिए मिलकर लड़ेंगे जीतेंगे!

साथियो

दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय का इतिहास संघर्ष और एकजुटता का इतिहास है। हर कठिन दौर में शिक्षकों ने मिलकर शिक्षा के पक्ष में, अपने अधिकारों के लिए और विश्वविद्यालय की गरिमा की रक्षा के लिए आवाज़ उठाई है। डूटा (DUTA) हमेशा इसी आवाज़ का प्रतीक रहा है।

लेकिन पिछले कुछ वर्षों में मौजूदा नेतृत्व और उनके दल NDTF ने डूटा को शिक्षकों की आवाज़ से अलग  सरकारी नीतियों का प्रवक्ता बना दिया है। शिक्षक विरोधी–शिक्षा विरोधी नीतियों पर उनकी चुप्पी और कभी-कभी खुला समर्थन इस बात का सबूत है कि अब डूटा के संघर्षपूर्ण गौरव को वापस पाने के लिए हमें निर्णायक कदम उठाना होगा।

आज जब एनईपी–2020, ड्राफ्ट यूजीसी रेगुलेशन & गाइडलाईन 2025, एचईसीआई बिल, बोर्ड ऑफ गवर्नरस, और कॉरपोरेटीकरण–निजीकरण जैसे हमले तेज़ हैं, तब हमें एक मज़बूत और संघर्षशील नेतृत्व की सबसे ज़्यादा ज़रूरत है।

शिक्षा पर हमला – डूटा की चुप्पी

• गुणवत्तापूर्ण कोर कोर्स की जगह थोपे गए SEC, VAC, AEC जैसे सतही विषय।
• CUET और FYUP की मार से छात्र–शिक्षक दोनों परेशान।
• 8AM से 8PM टाइमटेबल की थकाऊ व्यवस्था, जिससे छात्र गायब और शिक्षा की साख गिरती जा रही है।
• इंडियन नॉलेज सिस्टम जैसे थोपू पाठ्यक्रम से अकादमिक स्वतंत्रता पर हमला।

इन सब बदलावों पर वर्तमान डूटा नेतृत्व चुप्पी साधे रहा, जिसके कारण DTF के नेतृत्व की डूटा ने जो हासिल किया था, वह भी छिन गया। OPS की बहाली, पास्ट सर्विस काउंट और इंक्रीमेंट कटौती जैसे प्रश्नों पर कोई संघर्ष नहीं हुआ।

शिक्षकों पर ताज़ा खतरे

• Draft UGC Regulations & Guidelines 2025 – प्रमोशन को ‘Notable Contributions’ से जोड़ा गया है, इसका मतलब है फंड उगाही। IKS और ऑनलाइन एजुकेशन, रोज़ाना 8 घंटे संस्थान में हाज़िरी की शर्त। लगाकर शिक्षकों पर असीमित वर्कलोड थोपा जाना। नए पे कमीशन की बात पूरी तरह गायब। कुलमिलाकर यह सीधी बंधुआगिरी का मॉडल है।
• HECI Bill और Board of Governors – इससे UGC खत्म कर दिया जाएगा। अलग–अलग संस्थानों में सेवा शर्तें थोप दी जाएंगी, केन्द्र सरकार ग्रुप A से शिक्षकों की पेरिटी खत्म होगी और सरकारी ग्रांट बंद करके शिक्षक को फंड-रेज़र बना दिया जाएगा। वेरिएबल पे-स्ट्रक्चर और प्रमोशन स्कीमें होंगी।
• NEP आधारित बदलाव – शिक्षा को बाज़ार की फैक्ट्री में बदल दिया गया है। FYUP और CUET की मार से छात्र और शिक्षक दोनों परेशान। ‘इंडियन नॉलेज सिस्टम’ थोपकर अकादमिक स्वतंत्रता को सेंसरशिप की ज़ंजीरों में जकड़ा जा रहा है।
• अस्थायी और एड-हॉक शिक्षकों का सवाल – सुप्रीम कोर्ट (दिसम्बर 2024) और दिल्ली HC (जुलाई 2025) के आदेश के बावजूद नियमितीकरण पर NDTF चुप्पी साधे हुए है।

क्यों चाहिए संघर्षशील नेतृत्व?

साथियो, ऐसा नहीं है कि नीतिगत हमलों को पीछे धकेला नहीं जा सकता। अतीत इसका सबूत है।

DTF के नेतृत्व में ही हुआ संघर्ष था जिसने –

• FYUP को वापस करवाया (20134-14)
• देशव्यापी आंदोलन के द्वारा 200 प्वॉइंट रोस्टर बहाल कराया (2018-19)
• कॉलेजों में प्रोफेसर पद को लाने का काम किया ।
• एम.फिल.–पीएच.डी. increments बहाल (2017–18)
• 30:70 ग्रांट कट की कोशिश वापस कराई (2017–18)
• API आधारित CAS 2010 के खिलाफ देशव्यापी आंदोलन (2011-18)
• दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के 6 कॉलेजों को स्वायत्त दर्जा देने की योजना रोकी (2017)
• शिक्षकों के वेतन के लिए दिल्ली सरकार के खिलाफ आंदोलन
• नियमितीकरण (Absorption) आंदोलन (2017–19)
• सितम्बर 2019 में OBC पदों की दूसरी किस्त स्वीकृत करवाई
• EWS आरक्षण में ad-hoc शिक्षकों का विस्थापन रोक

यही अनुभव बताता है कि रास्ता केवल एक है – व्यापक जन-संघर्ष।

शिक्षकों के नाम अपील

साथियो, पिछले चुनाव (2023) में DTF ने पूरे मन से आदित्य नारायण मिश्रा का समर्थन किया। उस एकजुटता ने हमें ताक़त दी। आज हालात और भी गंभीर हैं। लेकिन दुख की बात है कि AADTA नेतृत्व सरकार-परस्त NDTF का सामना करने की बजाय DTF पर हमले करने में व्यस्त है। हमारे अनुभव बताते हैं – आपसी झगड़े हमें कमज़ोर करेंगे और इसका फ़ायदा केवल NDTF व सरकार को मिलेगा। इसलिए, व्यक्तिगत मतभेद छोड़कर सभी जनवादी और धर्मनिरपेक्ष शिक्षक समूहों को DTF और राजीब रे के पीछे एकजुट होना होगा।

नीतिगत हमले को अपवाह बताने वाले को सबक सिखाओ!

जब उच्च शिक्षा पर इतना गंभीर हमला है तब NDTF के उम्मीदवार इसे DTF के द्वारा फैलाया जाने वाला अपवाह बता रहे हैं। यह सही है कि DTF ऐसे सभी गंभीर हमलों पर प्रशासन को पत्र लिखकर, प्रेस-विज्ञप्तियों के जरिए, सोशल मीडिया के पोस्ट और पर्चे के जरिए लगातार हस्तक्षेप करता रहा है। AC एवं EC में विरोध दर्ज करता रहा है। ऐसे में आपसे अपील है कि गंभीर नीतिगत हमले को अपवाह बताने वाले को डूटा नेतृत्व से बाहर करें

4 सितम्बर 2025 को निर्णायक चुनाव

यह चुनाव महज़ प्रतिनिधि चुनने का नहीं बल्कि डूटा को बचाने का चुनाव है। हमें तय करना होगा कि डूटा सरकारी कठपुतली रहेगा या फिर शिक्षकों की असली आवाज़ बनेगा।

साथियो

आइए डूटा को फिर से अपनी संयुक्त ताक़त बनाएं।

आइए संघर्ष की उस राह पर लौटें जिसने बार-बार शिक्षा विरोधी नीतियों को हराया है।

15.8.2025

Sub:Regularization of ad-hoc teachers as per the High Court Order of 11 July 2025

Greetings on Independence Day!

We write to you to express our concern that the University has not taken any steps to implement the High Court Order in favour of the regularization of two ad-hoc teachers of the Department of Germanic and Romance Studies, Delhi University. It has been more than a month since the Judgement of 11 July ruled in favour of serving ad-hoc teachers and the University should have convened a meeting of the Executive Council to discuss the modalities of its implementation not only in the Department of Germanic & Romance Studies but also in other colleges where there are large numbers of ad-hoc teachers.

We urge you to bring this matter for discussion in the Executive Council on an urgent basis and:

1. ⁠Formulate an Ordinance to implement the High Court Judgement for the regularization of these two teachers.
2. Take a reasoned decision in the spirit of the judgement to extend the relief to all the other ad-hoc teachers in the same Department as well as in the colleges of Delhi University.
3. Extend the spirit of the judgement to regularize displaced ad-hoc teachers against open vacancies.
4.  ⁠Regularize all non-teaching employees working on contractual basis.

Further, we also wish to draw your attention to the recent landmark Supreme Court order, passed on 20 December 2024 known as Jaggo, that while ordering regularization recognized the denial of long-term benefits such as continuity of service for in-service and post-retiral benefits to employees working on temporary basis. In the light of the above, we also urge you to ensure the counting of past service of all teachers towards all stages of promotion and retirement benefits.

Yours sincerely,

Rajib Ray, President
Abha Dev Habib, Secretary

Democratic Teachers’ Front

The High Court Judgement Namita Khare and Anr vs University of Delhi and Othr: ( click here for the copy of the Judgement)

The Jaggo Judgement: (Click here for the Supreme Court Judgement)

DTF Press Release 15 July 2024 on the High Court Order: (DTF Press Release 15 July 2024 on the High Court Order)

Reclaim DUTA as a site of teachers’ struggles! 

Teachers in Delhi University are currently threatened by the policy directions of the NEP and its rolling out through various Regulations, Guidelines and SOPs. DUTA’s historic strength lay in its ability to unite teachers for collective struggles at the university and all-India levels through informed critiques of policies that compromise educational quality, public character, and teachers’ service and working conditions, often gaining public support to compel government policy reversals.

That ability has been severely compromised. The DUTA has been reduced to a pocket organisation serving the DU administration and the Union government. It neglects to fight for teachers’ rights and academic integrity. It cannot displease the authorities. It has become a lower-order power centre, not their collective instrument for struggle, gradually making them voiceless and vulnerable.

11 July 2025 High Court Order

A High Court order, citing the 20 December 2024 Supreme Court  Jaggo judgment has directed regularisation of two ad-hoc teachers in the Department of GRS. This order demands an immediate collective response to secure its full implementation, including:

• Regularisation of all continuing ad-hoc and temporary teachers.
• Regularisation of teachers displaced against vacant posts.
• Counting of all past service towards full-service benefits.
• Regularisation of all non-teaching employees working as contractual employees.

The current leadership has failed on several counts:

Silence on corporatisation

Under the direction of the government, the University has adopted, in sync, a Strategic Plan (2024–47) and an Institutional Development Plan  (IDP) incorporating steps towards gradually freeing the university from public funding and reorienting itself academically to depend on funding from the market. Reduction in funding has already turned the university towards the predatory Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) loan model. Fees are being hiked and slated for annual hikes regularly. These have not been responded to with any visible agitation or substantive critique. This NEP-envisioned conversion of educational institutions into competing market players has serious consequences for teachers too.

Silence on detrimental UGC Draft Regulations and Guidelines

The Draft UGC Regulations and Guidelines 2025 propose two crucial changes designed to advance NEP’s central focus of ’empowering every institution to secure its finances’:

(1) Clauses 3.8–3.10 require ‘notable contributions‘ as a precondition for promotion. To be eligible for promotion, a teacher ha to secure market funding, in addition to promoting IKS and online education, etc.

(2) A daily workload of ‘not less than eight hours‘ is specified. The administration of each institution is empowered to allocate teaching hours, administrative work, apprenticeships, and any other duty. Teachers are to remain available in the institutions during these working hours.

Leaving the evaluation of notable contributions to each selection committee i.e., each institution as well as leaving the power to allocate workload to each institution are in keeping with the “light but tight” regulatory norm of the NEP to enforce a form of accountability. The Economic Survey 2024-25 candidly explains this idea of accountability: “There is no greater accountability than that demanded by the market through prospective faculty, students, their parents, and collaborating academic and non-academic institutions.” Hence, the enablers in the Draft UGC Regulations & Guidelines for each institution is to compete for its place in the market.

The DUTA feedback / petition offers only lip service. It requests that the current promotion scheme and workload stipulations remain unchanged. It does not even mention (1) “notable contributions” and (2) workload without a ceiling and administrative allocation of duties, both proposed in the documents. No critique of the disastrous academic implications of these proposals is attempted by the DUTA, let alone any campaign to garner public opinion against the assault on public character of HEIs, teachers and standards of teaching-learning.

DUTA’s silence has invited the infamous stopgap 8 am to 8 pm notification

There was a time when the UGC regulations used to insist that ‘no teacher shall be expected to lecture/discussion for more than three clock hours per day’ for maintenance of standards. The current NEP alignment vision of ‘not less than eight hours‘ needed public exposure. In 2002 and 2016 governmental moves to increase teaching load were pushed back through DUTA’s public critique, campaign and protest actions. This notification contains clauses which are detrimental to the teaching-learning process.

University 8 am to 8 pm Notification

The CUET-based admission policy has severely overburdened teachers and derailed academic calendars, short-circuiting the teaching-learning process. The academic restructuring has hollowed out academic programmes. And now this notification, celebrated by the NDTF as reassertion of 14/16 hours, brings in the following:

8 am to 8 pm schedule with a staggered timetable of minimum 5 hours and at least 2 hours per day for mentoring 10 students for every teacher.

1. 8 am to 8 pm is a disastrous response to shortage of teachers and infrastructure caused by government refusal to provide adequate number of teachers and appropriate infrastructure to meet EWS expansion and addition of one more year to undergraduate programme.
2. It fails to recognise that evening colleges exist and ignores safety concerns over students and teachers commuting the city at late hours.
3. Staggered timetable will cause either the students or the teachers or both to spend long hours without having teaching-learning or research proper space. The only way this can be redressed a little is to confine each teacher to courses offered for students of particular year, an academically disastrous idea.
4. The insistence on minimum 5 hours and at least 2 hours for mentoring sets aside the precondition of provision of proper space, something even the UGC Regulations laying down 14 / 16 hours a week specify. The university administration has given up all academic pretences.

The supervision of research in the fourth year is now officially over and above the stipulation of workload of maximum 14/16 hours for teachers.

1. This is a step towards the implementation of the Draft Guidelines 2025 where there is no upper limit on teaching hours.
2. This overload, violating the UGC Regulations, confirms that academic considerations are foreign to NEP.

Only senior faculty should teach and supervise the students of the fourth year.

1. An artificial academic hierarchy will vitiate the cordiality among teachers.
2. It compromises standards of teaching and learning by allotting papers not per academic interests and specialisation but by a whimsical category of seniority. Academic considerations have been substituted by administrative whims and fancies.
3. In colleges, especially the 12 colleges fully funded by the Delhi Government, where permanent appointments have not taken place yet, it may be logistically impossible apart from adding salt to the wound suffered by those working in ad hoc capacity.

Last but not least, the most unethical recommendation of this notification is to allow permanent teachers to take guest lectures over and above 14/16 hours of teaching for additional remuneration.

1. The idea is to make teachers complicit in changing the workload norms. If teaching-learning standards do not get adversely affected by arbitrarily longer hours of teaching (voluntarily accepted), what arguments are we to make against the anti-academic proposal of ‘not less than eight hours’ a day?
2. Many ad hoc teachers, who were displaced during permanent appointments, are working as guests. Many, with long years of service. are still awaiting guest positions. Denial of opportunity and hope to teachers who have suffered injustice is unforgivable.

Counting of Past Service

Following countrywide protests by teachers, the 2018 UGC Regulations had done away with the irrational quantification introduced in 2010. It also recognised ad-hoc service as service to be counted towards promotions. Unfortunately, the benefit of the past service remained restricted to the first promotion. Following the permanent recruitment of a large number of teachers with long ad-hoc teaching experience, a sustained movement was needed to have the entire past service counted at all stages of promotions and towards retirement benefits.

A positive development is the recent Supreme Court Jaggo judgment that ordered counting of the entire past service of the employees while ordering their regularisation. The intent of the government is in the Draft UGC Regulations 2025 that omits ad-hoc teaching experience.

Post-doctoral research experience in Indian institutes is not being counted towards promotion on flimsy technical ground while similar experience in most institutions abroad get counted.

Refusal to join collective struggles for restoration of OPS and withdrawal of MPhil/PhD increments

The same power-pleasing role has kept the DUTA away from joint movements with employees and teachers across India for the restoration of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

MPhil/PhD increments

The concession it got was for the administration to wait till the conclusion of the AC/EC elections before delivering a financial blow through a directive to deny increments upon acquiring M.Phil./Ph.D. degrees.

In 2017, the government had tried this and, further, attempted to make pay revision conditional on universities bearing 30% (30:70 formula for autonomous bodies) of the financial requirement. Massive collective protests with Rajib Ray as DUTA President had forced it to backtrack. Outrage is muted now. College staff associations are left battling on an issue that is national.

Denial of pay & pensionary benefits

DUTA has remained silent while the follwing entitlements granted to government employees are denied to teachers (employees of autonomous bodies).

1. Notional increment during promotion and for those retiring on June 30.
2. OPS for those recruited against posts advertised before 1.1.2024. (UGC notification, 3 March 2023)
3. Extension of OPS provisions to employees under NPS in cases of unfortunate demise (introduced during Covid period and withdrawn for universities vide UGC letter, 6.8.2025).

Promotion of ideological agenda and censorship

On the contrary, the pro-Government group pushes its ideological agenda not through scholarship. Critical enquiry and learning on social issues like gender and caste are targeted. The university administration has used AC and its Standing Committee on Academic matters to force Heads of Departments to delete topics essential to their respective disciplines, in the process diluting the content. They have also mandated the compulsorily adoption of topics and readings that reflect an uncritical zeal to include a version of IKS in every disciplinary pursuit. The hollowing out of academic rigour through censorship and administrative commands, and beyond academic debate, threatens students’ future.

Other matters of serious concern

• The failure to restore Governing Bodies in the 12 Delhi government-funded colleges continues to undermine their democratic functioning and teachers’ representation.
• Teachers and employees of colleges are now denied WUS Health Centre entitlements.
• No attempt to get teachers together for the demand for the constitution of the 8th UGC Pay Review Committee has been made.
• CAS for Instructors
• Retirement age of teachers of Physical Education appointed before 1991 as per the EC Resolution should be protected.
• The parity of librarians with teachers in terms of their recruitment and retirement age.
• Implementation of 7 CPC in Centres like CEMDE Bio-diversity Parks).
• Associate Professors are not eligible for Study Leave nor are they eligible Sabbatical Leave till they complete 7 years. As a result, teachers getting prestigious fellowships in Institutions or Universities in India or abroad are unable to avail them.
• The university notification on Maternity Leave to ad hoc and contract employees often becomes a lip service due to ambiguities.
• Illegal recoveries from retired teachers, teachers on the verge of retirement and in cases where the overpayment was made by the administration more than five years earlier continue.
• Newly appointed teachers in many departments are still awaiting allotment of rooms and labs.
• The SOP dated 3.6.2024 and DU Notification of 20.7.2023 add another layer to the recruitment of teachers in colleges. Candidates must make presentation to yet another committee prior to facing the Selection Committee.
• The university administration insists on papers published in Scopus-indexed journals for promotion and recruitment in departments and for recruitment of Principals. Publications in other peer-reviewed and refereed journals are not considered by the university in violation of the UGC Regulations.
• Efforts to retain
• Imposition of ITEP in place of B.El.Ed. which had organically developed programme and was doing extremely well.
• Instead of meeting the demand for regularisation of self-financing courses like Computer Science, NEP derivative self-financing courses like Integrated Law, BTech and ITEP with steep fees have been introduced.
• Out-of-turn house allotment in the university has become a persistent practice.
• Continuation of Principals beyond two terms.
• While battling API and then requirement of journal publications for promotion, the long-standing demand of three assured promotions till Professorship has been neglected. It needs to be revived to bring back focus on teaching and building institutions.

This is not the complete list of issues ignored by the current DUTA leadership, but teachers of DU can clearly see that their inaction and collusion have emboldened the administration and facilitated policies that degrade the teaching-learning process and exploit teachers, non-teaching colleagues, and students, thereby undermining public higher education.

Appropriate working and living conditions for differently abled teachers find no attention

An example of this larger malaise is the case of Mistreatment of Ms. Sharmishta Atreja, a fully visually impaired faculty member of Department of Philosophy, had to seek judicial intervention to secure for herself a disabled-friendly university accommodation.

It is indicative of a much larger absence of sensitivity and willingness to find just solutions.

Assault on social justice through NFS in appointments and denial of promotions

Many posts under reserved categories in the departments were kept vacant using NFS. The insistence on Scopus indexation has become one more tool for subversion of the constitutional imperative of social justice at the screening stage.

Dr. Ashok Kumar, Department of Physics and Astrophysics, has been denied promotion to Professor. He has far more than the requisite qualifications and is acknowledged by the university for bringing laurels to it through his research. The application of Dr. Ratan Lal, who teaches History in Hindu College, dated 26.10.2020 for promotion to Professor by has not been processed. He has been denied sabbatical leave. His request to withdraw money from his PF account is not being processed. There are many other such cases of targeting.

A DTF-led DUTA, if elected, pledges to prioritise:

• Concerted struggles and campaigns to secure teachers’ rights.
• Building united movements with students, non-teaching colleagues, and teachers’ unions across the country.
• Defending public-funded higher education, academic freedom, and the rights and dignity of all teachers.

The DTF urges Delhi University teachers to use the 4 September 2025 election as an opportunity to reclaim DUTA as a “fighting force,” rather than a body complicit in the “privatisation, commercialisation, and ideological assault on academics”.

Vote for the DTF team committed to required collective struggles to preserve our university, secure our rights, and defend public higher education for all. Elect Rajib Ray as DUTA President and his team from DTF and all like-minded activists to the DUTA Executive.

The DTF is trying to bring together all teachers’ organisations and activists, who are concerned about the unwillingness of the pro-government NDTF leadership of the DUTA, to confront the devastating changes in educational structures, content, and teachers’ service and working conditions. A united front with Rajib Ray as the candidate is the need of the hour.

डीटीएफ ने आज डूटा (DUTA) चुनावों के लिए अपने उम्मीदवारों की घोषणा की, जो 4 सितम्बर 2025 को होंगे। अध्यक्ष पद के लिए राजीब रे को उम्मीदवार बनाया गया है। डूटा कार्यकारिणी समिति के लिए बिश्वजीत मोहंती, दिनेश कटारिया, वी.एस. दीक्षित और यशा यादव को टीम में शामिल किया गया है।

डीटीएफ उन सभी शिक्षक संगठनों और कार्यकर्ताओं को साथ लाने की कोशिश कर रही है, जो इस बात से परेशान हैं कि डूटा की सरकार समर्थक एनडीटीएफ टीम शिक्षकों और शिक्षा पर हो रहे बुरे बदलावों का विरोध नहीं कर रही है। इसलिए आज जरूरत है कि हम सब एकजुट हों और राजीब रे को उम्मीदवार बनाकर एक मजबूत संयुक्त मोर्चा बनाएं।

दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के शिक्षक इन दिनों नई शिक्षा नीति (NEP) और उससे जुड़े नियमों, दिशा-निर्देशों और प्रक्रियाओं के कारण खतरे में हैं। यह नीतियाँ शिक्षा की गुणवत्ता, सार्वजनिक चरित्र और शिक्षकों की सेवा शर्तों को कमजोर कर रही हैं।

पहले डूटा (DUTA) की ताकत यह थी कि वह सभी शिक्षकों को एकजुट कर सरकार की नीतियों का विरोध करती थी। उसने कई बार सरकार को गलत नीतियाँ वापस लेने के लिए मजबूर किया। यह संघर्ष शिक्षकों के हक और शिक्षा की गरिमा की रक्षा के लिए होता था।

लेकिन पिछले कुछ वर्षों में डूटा की यह भूमिका बहुत कमजोर हो गई है। अब डूटा शिक्षक हितों की लड़ाई छोड़कर विश्वविद्यालय प्रशासन और केंद्र सरकार के इशारों पर चल रही है। वह अब एक ऐसी संस्था बन गई है जो शिक्षकों की आवाज़ उठाने के बजाय उन पर नियंत्रण रखती है। इससे शिक्षक अकेले, कमजोर और बेआवाज़ होते जा रहे हैं।

11 जुलाई 2025 को दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने एक अहम आदेश दिया है

11 जुलाई 2025 को दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने एक अहम आदेश दिया है, जिसमें दिसंबर 2024 के सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक “जागो” फैसले का हवाला देते हुए जर्मन एंड रोमन स्टडीज़ (GRS) विभाग के दो एड-हॉक शिक्षकों को नियमित करने के निर्देश दिए गए हैं।

यह फैसला सिर्फ दो शिक्षकों के लिए नहीं, बल्कि सभी एड-हॉक और संविदा पर काम कर रहे शिक्षकों और कर्मचारियों के लिए उम्मीद की किरण है। इस आदेश के आधार पर एक साझा संघर्ष शुरू करना ज़रूरी है, ताकि इसकी पूरी तरह से क्रियान्वयन हो सके। इसके लिए प्रमुख मांगें हैं:

• जो एड-हॉक और अस्थायी शिक्षक लगातार काम कर रहे हैं, उन्हें नियमित किया जाए।
• जिन शिक्षकों को खाली पदों के बावजूद हटाया गया है, उन्हें दोबारा बहाल कर नियमित किया जाए।
• अब तक की गई पूरी सेवा को पूर्ण सेवा लाभ (जैसे पेंशन, प्रोमोशन) में जोड़ा जाए।

जो गैर-शैक्षणिक कर्मचारी संविदा पर काम कर रहे हैं, उन्हें भी नियमित किया जाए।

यह आदेश हमें एक कानूनी ताकत देता है, लेकिन इसके लिए शिक्षकों और कर्मचारियों की एकता और संगठित दबाव ज़रूरी है। अब समय आ गया है कि हम सब मिलकर इस ऐतिहासिक मौके का फायदा उठाएं।

वर्तमान नेतृत्व कई मोर्चों पर विफल रहा है:

कॉरपोरेटीकरण पर चुप्पी:

सरकार के निर्देशों पर विश्वविद्यालय ने एक स्ट्रैटेजिक प्लान (2024–2047) और इंस्टीट्यूशनल डेवलपमेंट प्लान (IDP) को अपनाया है। ये योजनाएँ विश्वविद्यालय को धीरे-धीरे सार्वजनिक फंडिंग से मुक्त करने और बाज़ार आधारित वित्तपोषण की ओर ले जाने की दिशा में बढ़ रही हैं। सरकारी फंडिंग में कटौती के कारण विश्वविद्यालय पहले ही HEFA (हायर एजुकेशन फाइनेंसिंग एजेंसी) जैसे शोषणकारी कर्ज़ मॉडल की ओर बढ़ चुका है। फीस में बढ़ोतरी हो रही है और हर साल बढ़ाई जाने की योजना है। इन खतरनाक नीतियों पर न तो कोई ठोस विरोध दर्ज हुआ है, न ही नेतृत्व की ओर से कोई सार्थक आलोचना सामने आई है। नई शिक्षा नीति (NEP) के तहत शिक्षा संस्थानों को एक-दूसरे से प्रतिस्पर्धा करने वाले बाजार के खिलाड़ियों में बदलने की जो योजना है, उसके गंभीर प्रभाव शिक्षकों पर भी पड़ने वाले हैं — लेकिन वर्तमान नेतृत्व इन सवालों पर पूरी तरह चुप है।

यूजीसी के शिक्षा विरोधी ड्राफ्ट रेगुलेशनों और गाइडलाइनों पर चुप्पी:

यूजीसी ड्राफ्ट रेगुलेशन और गाइडलाइंस 2025 में दो बड़े बदलाव प्रस्तावित हैं, जिनका मकसद नई शिक्षा नीति (NEP) के इस केंद्रीय लक्ष्य को आगे बढ़ाना है कि हर संस्थान खुद अपना वित्त जुटाने के लिए “सक्षम” हो।

1. धारा 3.8 से 3.10 में प्रोन्नति के लिए यह शर्त रखी गई है कि शिक्षक की “महत्वपूर्ण योगदान” (notable contributions) होनी चाहिए। इसका मतलब यह है कि हर शिक्षक को बाज़ार से धन जुटाने, भारतीय ज्ञान प्रणाली (IKS) को बढ़ावा देने और ऑनलाइन शिक्षा को लागू करने में भूमिका निभानी होगी।
2. साथ ही, हर दिन कम से कम आठ घंटे कार्य की बाध्यता प्रस्तावित की गई है। इसके तहत शिक्षक को संस्थान में पूरे समय उपस्थित रहना होगा, और प्रशासन को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह पढ़ाई के अलावा प्रशासनिक काम, अप्रेंटिसशिप या कोई भी अन्य ड्यूटी जब चाहे, दे सके।

इन प्रस्तावों से शिक्षकों की स्वतंत्रता, गरिमा और अधिकारों पर गहरा आघात होता है। लेकिन DUTA के नेतृत्व ने केवल औपचारिक और कमजोर प्रतिक्रिया दी — जिसमें वे सिर्फ प्रोन्नति योजना और वर्कलोड को पुराने रूप में बनाए रखने की नरम गुज़ारिश करते हैं। “महत्वपूर्ण योगदान” और आठ घंटे की ड्यूटी जैसे अहम मसलों का तो ज़िक्र तक नहीं किया गया। इन शिक्षा विरोधी प्रस्तावों के गंभीर शैक्षणिक परिणामों को लेकर न कोई ठोस आलोचना हुई है, न ही कोई सार्वजनिक अभियान चलाया गया है। यह चुप्पी इस डर से है कि कहीं सत्ता में बैठे आकाओं को नाराज़ न कर दिया जाए।

पुरानी पेंशन योजना की बहाली, एम.फिल./पीएच.डी. इन्क्रीमेंट की वापसी और पूर्व सेवा की गणना जैसे मुद्दों पर सामूहिक संघर्ष से इनकार

सत्ता को खुश रखने की इसी भूमिका ने डूटा को देशभर के शिक्षकों और कर्मचारियों के साथ पुरानी पेंशन योजना (OPS) की बहाली के लिए चल रहे संयुक्त आंदोलनों से दूर रखा है। डूटा को जो “रियायत” मिली, वह बस इतनी थी कि प्रशासन ने एसी/ईसी चुनाव पूरे होने तक इंतजार करने का वादा किया, और फिर उसके बाद ही यह निर्देश जारी किया कि एम.फिल./पीएच.डी. की डिग्री लेने पर अब वेतनवृद्धि (increment) नहीं दी जाएगी।

यह पहली बार नहीं हुआ है। 2017 में, जब सरकार ने वेतन संशोधन को इस शर्त से जोड़ने की कोशिश की थी कि विश्वविद्यालय इसकी 30% लागत खुद वहन करें — तब राजीब रे के नेतृत्व में डूटा ने अन्य विश्वविद्यालयों और संगठनों के साथ मिलकर जबरदस्त विरोध किया था। सरकार को पीछे हटना पड़ा था। लेकिन अब उस तरह का विरोध नदारद है। न तो डूटा ने कोई जोरदार प्रतिक्रिया दी, न ही कोई आंदोलन शुरू किया। कॉलेज स्टाफ एसोसिएशन को इस राष्ट्रीय मुद्दे पर अकेला छोड़ दिया गया है, जबकि यह लड़ाई सभी शिक्षकों और कर्मचारियों की है। यह चुप्पी केवल एक रणनीतिक चूक नहीं, बल्कि शिक्षकों के अधिकारों के साथ गद्दारी है।

शैक्षणिक एवं वर्कलोड में भारी बदलाव से शिक्षकों पर बोझ का बढ़ना

CUET आधारित प्रवेश प्रणाली ने शिक्षकों पर अचानक और अत्यधिक बोझ डाल दिया है। इससे न केवल शैक्षणिक कैलेंडर अस्त-व्यस्त हो गया है, बल्कि पढ़ाई और सीखने की प्रक्रिया भी जल्दीबाज़ी और अव्यवस्था का शिकार हो गई है। साथ ही, विश्वविद्यालयों में हो रही शैक्षणिक पुनर्रचना ने पाठ्यक्रमों की गहराई, गंभीरता और गुणवत्ता को कम कर दिया है। पहले जहाँ पढ़ाई सोचने-समझने पर आधारित थी, अब उसे सतही और बाज़ारोन्मुख बना दिया गया है, जिससे छात्रों की समझ और शिक्षकों की भूमिका दोनों प्रभावित हो रही हैं। अब जब FYUP (फोर ईयर अंडरग्रेजुएट प्रोग्राम) का चौथा वर्ष लागू किया जा रहा है, तो शिक्षकों पर रिसर्च पर्यवेक्षण का अतिरिक्त बोझ भी डाला जा रहा है। इसका मतलब है कि शिक्षकों का कार्यभार और बढ़ेगा, जिससे पढ़ाई की गुणवत्ता पर सीधा असर पड़ेगा। यह बदलाव शिक्षकों के लिए थकाऊ, असंतुलित और शिक्षा विरोधी सिद्ध हो रहा है।

वैचारिक एजेंडा थोपना और अकादमिक सेंसरशिप

इसके विपरीत, सरकार समर्थक समूह शैक्षणिक शोध या बहस के ज़रिए नहीं, बल्कि प्रशासनिक दबाव और थोपे गए निर्णयों के ज़रिए अपना वैचारिक एजेंडा लागू कर रहा है। जेंडर, जाति और अन्य सामाजिक मुद्दों पर आलोचनात्मक अध्ययन और बहस को जानबूझकर निशाना बनाया जा रहा है।

विश्वविद्यालय प्रशासन ने एसी (Academic Council) और इसकी स्टैंडिंग कमेटी के ज़रिए विभागाध्यक्षों पर दबाव डाला है कि वे अपने-अपने विषयों से जरूरी और मूलभूत पाठ्य-विषयों को हटाएं, जिससे पाठ्यक्रम की गंभीरता और गहराई कम हो रही है। इसके साथ-साथ यह भी अनिवार्य कर दिया गया है कि हर विषय में IKS (भारतीय ज्ञान परंपरा) से जुड़ी सामग्री को बिना आलोचनात्मक दृष्टिकोण के शामिल किया जाए, चाहे वह विषय से मेल खाता हो या नहीं। सेंसरशिप, प्रशासनिक आदेशों और अकादमिक बहस से बाहर लिए गए फैसलों के ज़रिए इस तरह का हस्तक्षेप शैक्षणिक स्वतंत्रता और गुणवत्ता को खोखला कर रहा है। इसका सीधा खतरा छात्रों के भविष्य और उच्च शिक्षा की साख पर है।

अन्य गंभीर चिंताएं

दिल्ली सरकार द्वारा वित्तपोषित 12 कॉलेजों में अब तक गवर्निंग बॉडीज़ की बहाली न होना उनके लोकतांत्रिक संचालन और शिक्षकों के प्रतिनिधित्व को लगातार कमजोर कर रहा है। कॉलेजों के शिक्षक और कर्मचारी अब WUS हेल्थ सेंटर की स्वास्थ्य सुविधाओं से वंचित कर दिए गए हैं। विकलांग शिक्षकों के लिए उपयुक्त कार्यस्थल और आवासीय सुविधाओं के मुद्दों पर कोई ध्यान नहीं दिया गया है। नॉन नेट, नॉन फेलोशिप (NFS) के ज़रिए की जा रही नियुक्तियों और प्रोन्नति से इनकार के ज़रिए सामाजिक न्याय पर हमला हो रहा है। आठवीं यूजीसी वेतन समीक्षा समिति (UGC Pay Review Committee) के गठन की मांग को लेकर शिक्षकों को एकजुट करने की कोई पहल नहीं की गई है। इंस्ट्रक्टर पद के शिक्षकों की प्रोन्नति योजना का समाधान आज तक लंबित है। यह सूची पूरी नहीं है — लेकिन दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के शिक्षक साफ देख सकते हैं कि डूटा के वर्तमान नेतृत्व की निष्क्रियता और प्रशासन से मिलीभगत ने न केवल प्रशासन को और साहसी बनाया है, बल्कि ऐसी नीतियों को लागू करने में मदद की है जो शिक्षण-प्रशिक्षण की प्रक्रिया को नुकसान पहुंचाती हैं, और शिक्षकों, गैर-शिक्षकों व छात्रों का शोषण करती हैं, जिससे सार्वजनिक उच्च शिक्षा की बुनियाद कमजोर हो रही है।

यदि डूटा में डीटीएफ का नेतृत्व चुना जाता है, तो वह वचन देती है कि वह निम्नलिखित को प्राथमिकता बनाएगी:

• शिक्षकों के अधिकारों के लिए संगठित संघर्ष और अभियान चलाना।
• छात्रों, गैर-शैक्षणिक कर्मचारियों और देशभर के शिक्षक संगठनों के साथ मिलकर एकजुट आंदोलन खड़ा करना।
• सार्वजनिक वित्तपोषित उच्च शिक्षा, शैक्षणिक स्वतंत्रता, और सभी शिक्षकों के अधिकारों व सम्मान की मजबूती से रक्षा करना।

डीटीएफ सभी शिक्षकों से अपील करती है कि वे 4 सितंबर 2025 को होने वाले चुनाव को डूटा को एक संघर्षशील मंच के रूप में वापस पाने का मौका बनाएं — न कि उसे उन नीतियों का सहयोगी बने रहने दें, जो निजीकरण, बाज़ारीकरण और शिक्षा पर वैचारिक हमलों को बढ़ावा देती हैं।

डीटीएफ की टीम को वोट दें, जो हमारे विश्वविद्यालय की रक्षा, शिक्षकों के अधिकारों की सुरक्षा, और सभी के लिए सार्वजनिक शिक्षा को बचाने के लिए संगठित और प्रतिबद्ध संघर्ष के रास्ते पर है।

राजीब रे को डूटा अध्यक्ष के रूप में और डीटीएफ तथा समान सोच वाले साथियों को डूटा कार्यकारिणी के लिए चुनें।

The DTF today announced its panel of candidates for the Delhi University Teachers Association (DUTA) elections scheduled for 4th September 2025. Leading the DTF team is Rajib Ray for President, alongside a dedicated team for the DUTA Executive Committee: Biswajit Mohanty, Dinesh Kataria, V.S. Dixit and Yasha Yadav.

The DTF is making an effort to bring together all teachers’ organisations and activists, who are concerned about the unwillingness of the pro-government NDTF leadership of the DUTA to confront the devastating changes in educational structures, content, and teachers’ service and working conditions. A united front with Rajib Ray as the candidate is the need of the hour.

Teachers in Delhi University are currently threatened by the policy directions of the NEP and its rolling out through various Regulations, Guidelines and SOPs. DUTA’s historic strength lay in its ability to unite teachers for collective struggles at the university and all-India levels through informed critiques of policies that compromise educational quality, public character, and teachers’ service and working conditions, often gaining public support to compel government policy reversals.

For several years, that ability has been severely compromised. The DUTA has been reduced to a pocket organisation serving the DU administration and the Union government, neglecting its mandate to fight for teachers’ rights and academic integrity. It cannot displease the authorities, acting instead as a lower-order power centre over teachers, not their collective instrument for struggle, gradually turning them voiceless and vulnerable.

An 11 July 2025 High Court Order

A High Court order, citing a recent landmark Supreme Court judgment in December 2024 called Jaggo, has directed regularisation of two ad-hoc teachers in the Department of GRS. This order demands an immediate collective response to secure its full implementation, including:

• Regularisation of all continuing ad-hoc and temporary teachers.
• Regularisation of teachers displaced against vacant posts.
• Counting of all past service towards full-service benefits.
• Regularisation of all non-teaching employees working as contractual employees.

The current leadership has failed on several counts:

Silence on corporatisation

Under the direction of the government, the University has adopted, in sync, a Strategic Plan (2024–47) and an IDP incorporating steps towards gradually freeing the university from public funding and reorienting itself academically to depend on funding from the market. Reduction in funding has already turned the university towards the predatory Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) loan model. Fees are being hiked and slated to be hiked annually. These have not been responded to with any visible agitation or substantive critique. This NEP-envisioned conversion of educational institutions into competing market players has serious consequences for teachers too.

Silence on detrimental UGC Draft Regulations and Guidelines

The Draft UGC Regulations and Guidelines 2025 propose two crucial changes designed to advance NEP’s central focus of ’empowering every institution to secure its finances’, namely:

(1) Clauses 3.8–3.10 require ‘notable contributions‘ as a precondition for promotion, forcing each teacher to contribute to securing market funding, in addition to promoting IKS and online education.

(2) A daily workload of ‘not less than eight hours‘ is specified, leaving teachers at the mercy of an administration ’empowered’ to allocate teaching, administrative work, apprenticeships, and any other duties at its discretion. Teachers are required to remain available in the institutions during these working hours.

Teachers’ concerns have found mere lip service in DUTA’s feedback/petition, innocuously pleading for promotion scheme and workload stipulations to remain unchanged while not mentioning “notable contributions” and workload specifications. No serious critique of the disastrous academic implications of these assaults on teachers or any campaign to garner public opinion is in sight. The silence is a consequence of the compulsion not to displease the masters.

Counting of Past Service

Following countrywide protests by teachers, the 2018 UGC Regulations had done away with the irrational quantification introduced in 2010. It also recognised ad-hoc service as service to be counted towards promotions. Unfortunately, the benefit of the past service remained restricted to the first promotion. Following the permanent recruitment of a large number of teachers with long ad-hoc teaching experience, a sustained movement was needed to get the entire past service counted for all stages of promotions and towards retirement benefits. The Draft Regulations 2025 excludes ad-hoc teaching experience towards promotion.

Refusal to join collective struggles for restoration of OPS and withdrawal of MPhil/PhD increments

The same power-pleasing role has kept the DUTA away from joint movements with employees and teachers across India for the restoration of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). The concession it got was for the administration to wait till the conclusion of the AC/EC elections before delivering a financial blow through a directive to deny increments upon acquiring M.Phil./Ph.D. degrees. In 2017, the same attempt by the government alongside its attempt to make pay revision conditional on universities bearing 30% of the financial requirement was met with massive collective protest with Rajib Ray as DUTA President. The Government had to backtrack. Outrage is muted now. College staff associations have been left to battle on an issue that is national.

Academic and workload burdens

The CUET-based admission policy has severely overburdened teachers and derailed academic calendars, short-circuiting the teaching-learning process. The academic restructuring has hollowed out academic programmes. Furthermore, the rolling out of Fourth Year of the FYUP will place an additional burden of supervision of research causing workloads to increase to levels detrimental to quality.

Promotion of ideological agenda and censorship

On the contrary, the pro-Government group pushes its ideological agenda not through scholarship. Critical enquiry and learning on social issues like gender and caste are targeted. The university administration has used AC and its Standing Committee on Academic matters to force Heads of Departments to delete topics essential to their respective disciplines, in the process diluting the content. They have also mandated the compulsorily adoption of topics and readings that reflect an uncritical zeal to include a version of IKS in every disciplinary pursuit. The hollowing out of academic rigour through censorship and administrative commands, and beyond academic debate, threatens students’ future.

Other matters of serious concern

• The failure to restore Governing Bodies in the 12 Delhi government-funded colleges continues to undermine their democratic functioning and teachers’ representation.
• Teachers and employees of colleges are now denied WUS Health Centre entitlements.
• The issues of appropriate working and living conditions for differently abled teachers find no attention.
• Assault on social justice through rampant use of NFS in appointments and denial of promotions.
• No attempt to get teachers together for the demand for the constitution of the 8th UGC Pay Review Committee has been made.
• Promotion scheme for instructors has not yet been resolved.

This is not the complete list of issues ignored by the current DUTA leadership, but teachers of DU can clearly see that their inaction and collusion have emboldened the administration and facilitated policies that degrade the teaching-learning process and exploit teachers, non-teaching colleagues, and students, thereby undermining public higher education.

A DTF-led DUTA, if elected, pledges to prioritise:

• Concerted struggles and campaigns to secure teachers’ rights.
• Building united movements with students, non-teaching colleagues, and teachers’ unions across the country.
• Defending public-funded higher education, academic freedom, and the rights and dignity of all teachers.

The DTF urges Delhi University teachers to use the 4 September 2025 election as an opportunity to reclaim DUTA as a “fighting force,” rather than a body complicit in the “privatisation, commercialisation, and ideological assault on academics”.

Vote for the DTF team committed to required collective struggles to preserve our university, secure our rights, and defend public higher education for all. Elect Rajib Ray as DUTA President and his team from DTF and all like-minded activists to the DUTA Executive.

The DTF welcomes the reasoned and progressive character of the High Court order for regularization of two adhoc teachers of the Department of Germanic and Romance Studies, Delhi University. This High Court order is based on the law laid down in the recent (20 December 2024) landmark Supreme Court order known as Jaggo.

These progressive Judgements fortify the demands by unions to regularise employees and bring hope to many. In the wake of these orders, Delhi University must work towards:

• Regularization of the remaining adhoc teachers.
• ⁠Regularization of as many displaced adhoc teachers as possible against the remaining vacancies.
• ⁠The entire past service should count towards all stages of promotion and retirement benefits.
• ⁠Regularisation of non-teaching employees working for long years on contractual terms.

The High Court Judgement Namita Khare and Anr vs University of Delhi and Othr: ( click here for the copy of the Judgement)

Bringing relief to the two colleagues serving on adhoc basis, the High Court order does not deliberate on prayers regarding shortlisting criteria or opportunity to be considered by selection committee since the substantive issue of regularization based on sustained service essential to the working of the institution based on appointments that were not illegal is me.

The Jaggo Judgement: (Click here for the Supreme Court Judgement)

In the Jaggo case, the Supreme Court had noted “a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

•  ⁠Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service..
•  ⁠Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
•  ⁠Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”

It also noted that:.

“Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.”

While ordering regularization, the Supreme Court had also directed that the appellants would be entitled to “continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits”.

Rajib Ray, President
Abha Dev Habib, Secretary

चरणबद्ध व्यावसायीकरण और निजीकरण का विरोध करें!

डीटीएफ़ को वोट दें, कार्यकारी परिषद (ईसी) के लिए मिथुराज धुसिया को चुनें!

1. नियुक्ति नियमों में ढील देकर और ‘उल्लेखनीय योगदानों’ के आधार पर अकादमिक क्षेत्र से बाहर के लोगों (लैटरल एंट्री) समेत अपनी पसंद के व्यक्तियों को नियुक्त करना।
2. प्रोन्नति के नियमों के ज़रिये हर शिक्षक/अकादमिक कर्मचारी को पुरस्कृत/दंडित करना। प्रोन्नति के लिए जितना शिक्षण और शोधकार्य ज़रूरी है, उसके अलावा एक शिक्षक का 9 सूचीबद्ध क्षेत्रों में से कम-से-कम चार में ‘उल्लेखनीय योगदान’ होना चाहिए।
3. ‘उल्लेखनीय योगदानों’ में शामिल हैं: क) शोध, इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर डेवलपमेंट, कम्यूनिटी प्रोग्राम्स और स्टार्ट-अप्स के लिए यथेष्ट फन्डिंग जुटाना, ख) ऑनलाइन शिक्षा को बढ़ावा देना और विद्यार्थियों के लिए इंटर्नशिप की व्यवस्था करना, ग) भारतीय भाषाओं और सरकार द्वारा अभिकल्पित ‘इंडियन नालिज सिस्टम’ को बढ़ावा देना, और घ) नवाचारी अध्यापन।

लेवल 10 से लेवल 11 तक की प्रोन्नति को छोड़कर और सभी प्रोन्नतियों के लिए पीएच-डी डिग्री अनिवार्य कर दी गयी है।

मसौदे के क्लॉज़ 3.8 और इसके बाद के क्लॉज़ेज़ में नियुक्ति और प्रोन्नति के योग्य होने के लिए ‘उल्लेखनीय योगदान’ की जो शर्त रखी गयी है, वह शिक्षण और शोध को कमतर महत्त्व देकर ग़ैर-अकादमिक गतिविधियों को ऊपर रखती है। यह सिलेक्शन कमेटियों के हाथ में मनमानी शक्तियाँ देती है और दूसरी तरफ़ अभी की एपीआई पर आधारित व्यवस्था के मुक़ाबले अधिक कठोर, भयानक और अविवेकपूर्ण है (यूजीसी अध्यक्ष के वक्तव्य के लिए नीचे बॉक्स देखें)।

डीटीएफ़ ने दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा अपनायी गयी आईडीपी को लोगों की जानकारी में लाया था। उसमें स्वीकार किया गया है कि  विश्वविद्यालय के कुल खर्चे का मात्र 76.6% यूजीसी से प्राप्त होता है और धीरे-धीरे इस सरकारी वित्त-पोषण से खुद को पूरी तरह अलग कर लेने की इसकी योजना है। विश्वविद्यालयों और कॉलेजों द्वारा बाज़ार से अपने वित्तीय संसाधन पैदा करने की इसी चरणबद्ध प्रक्रिया के हिस्से के तौर पर इस मसौदे को देखा जाना चाहिए। राजस्व जुटाने को शिक्षक के काम के हिस्से के रूप में प्रस्तावित किया गया है। प्रोन्नति और अन्य सेवा-लाभ दिए जाने से इस आधार पर इनकार करना कॉस्ट कटिंग में शामिल है।

वर्कलोड का सवाल

प्रति सप्ताह प्रत्यक्ष शिक्षण के अधिकतम घंटे, जिसका निर्धारण स्तरीयता बनाए रखने के लिए बेहद ज़रूरी है, उसे निर्धारित न किए जाने से शिक्षकों का वर्कलोड बढ़ाए जाने और इस तरह छँटनी की शुरुआत करने की आशंका को बल मिलता है।

इस दिशा में संकेत यूजीसी गाइडलाइंस के मसौदे में मिलता है जिसमें यह कहा गया है कि एनईपी ने जिस ‘सम्पूर्ण’/ ‘होलिस्टिक’ शिक्षा की बात की है, उसके लिए हर शिक्षक का संस्थान में मौजूद रहना ज़रूरी है। हर संस्थान का प्रबंधन यह तय करने के लिए शक्तिसंपन्न है कि शिक्षक की इस मौजूदगी में से कितना समय शिक्षण-अधिगम के लिए, कितना प्रशासकीय कार्यों के लिए और कितना शिक्षक के अपने शोध कार्य के लिए आवंटित करना है। शिक्षण-अधिगम में अब शामिल हैं: “क्लासरूम टीचिंग, प्रैक्टिकल, इनोवैशन लॅब्स, क्लास प्रोजेक्ट्स, असाइनमेंट, टूटोरियल्स; स्पोर्ट्स एण्ड गेम्स, फिज़िकल ऐक्टिविटीज़, सोशल वर्क, एनसीसी, परीक्षाएं, मूल्यांकन; वोकैशनल एजुकेशन, ट्रेनिंग एण्ड स्किलिंग, प्रोजेक्ट वर्क, फ़ील्ड विजिट्स, इन्टर्नशिप, अप्रेन्टिसशिप वगैरह।”

The UGC Chairperson admits that “notable contributions” will be quantified in the following manner!!

“Higher education must be a transformative force”: UGC Chief on Draft Regulations 2025

https://www.edexlive.com/news/2025/Jan/10/higher-education-must-be-a-transformative-force-ugc-chief-on-controversial-draft-regulations-2025

“The selection committee consists of three subject experts who will use suitable criteria to quantify the “notable contributions,” ensuring that these are inclusive of diverse academic and non-academic pursuits. Out of the nine contributions, applicants must show notable contributions in four areas. They can be evaluated by limiting subjectivity.

• Consultancy/sponsored research funding: … a straightforward metric expressed in monetary terms.
• Digital content creation for MOOCs: … number of courses/modules created, the number of learners enrolled, and completion rates …
• Start-up …: … registration status, funding amount raised, and proof of successful government, angel, or venture capital funding.
• Research or teaching lab development: … number of labs established, the equipment installed, the number of students/researchers using the facilities, or the research output generated.
• Student internship/project supervision: … number of students supervised, completed projects, or internships arranged, along with feedback scores or outcomes.
• Innovative teaching contribution: … student feedback, the number of innovative practices introduced, their adoption rate, and student outcomes…
• Teaching contributions in Indian languages: … number of courses taught in Indian languages, students enrolled, and materials developed.
• Teaching-learning and research in the Indian Knowledge System: Measurable aspects could include publications, courses introduced, or research output in this domain.
• Community Engagement and Service: Quantifiable aspects include the number of community programmes organised, participation rates, and outcomes achieved.”

नियुक्ति

1. विषय की विशेषज्ञता का निर्धारण स्नातकोत्तर डिग्री के आधार पर न करके उम्मीदवार की पीएच-डी या नेट के आधार पर करना स्नातकोत्तर डिग्री के अकादमिक महत्त्व को कम करता है।
2. अकादमिक डिग्री, शिक्षण अनुभव और शोध-प्रकाशनों पर आधारित स्क्रीनिंग को खत्म करना और सिलेक्शन कमेटी के फ़ैसले को 100% वज़न देते हुए नियुक्ति करना मनमानेपन और ग़ैर-अकादमिक आधारों के लिए ज़्यादा अवसर मुहैया कराएगा।

पिछली सेवाओं की गिनती

1. दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के शिक्षक यह माँग करते रहे हैं कि प्रोन्नति के हर चरण में पिछली सेवाओं को गिना जाए, जबकि यह मसौदा यूजीसी के नियमानुसार बनी सिलेक्शन कमेटी के ज़रिये हुए सिलेक्शन तक ही इस गणना को सीमित कर देता है। दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय में तदर्थ शिक्षक दिविवि के ईसी रेसोल्यूशन के आधार पर नियुक्त होते रहे हैं। उनकी प्रोन्नति के पहले चरण में भी पिछली सेवाओं की गणना से मिलने वाले लाभ को यह मसौदा खतरे में डाल रहा है।
2. जहाँ विदेशी विश्वविद्यालयों में पोस्ट-डॉक अनुभव को उनकी तनख्वाह की वजह से गिनती में लिया जाता है, वहीं भारतीय संस्थानों में वेतन-समानता न होने के कारण उस अनुभव को गिना नहीं जाता। इस विसंगति को दूर किए जाने की जरूरत है।

प्रोन्नतियाँ

1. मसौदे में पहली दो प्रोन्नतियों के लिए स्क्रीनिंग कमेटी की जगह सिलेक्शन कमेटी प्रस्तावित है।
2. लेवल 12 पर प्रोन्नति के लिए पीएच-डी को ज़रूरी बना देना बहुत कठोर नियम है।
3. ‘नौ सूचीबद्ध क्षेत्रों में से चार में उल्लेखनीय योगदान’ की ज़रूरत, जिनका शिक्षण और शोध से कोई सीधा संबंध नहीं है, शिक्षक की ऊर्जा को दिशाहीन बनाकर अकादमिक रूप से अर्थहीन गतिविधियों में लगा देगी।
4. विश्वविद्यालय में एसोसिएट प्रोफेसर के पद पर सीधी नियुक्ति के लिए ज़रूरी प्रकाशनों की संख्या को 7 से बढ़ाकर 8 कर दिया गया है।
5. मसौदा आखिरकार पुस्तकों और पुस्तक-अध्यायों के महत्त्व को मान्यता देता है। लेकिन यह अभी देखना बाक़ी है कि विश्वविद्यालय इसका सम्मान करता है या नहीं। स्कोपस और यूजीसी-केयर लिस्ट वाले जर्नल्स के प्रकाशनों को ही मान्यता देकर प्रोन्नति और नियुक्ति संबंधी 2018 के यूजीसी रेग्युलेशंस का वह पहले ही उल्लंघन कर चुका है।
6. सीनियर प्रोफेसर (लेवल 15) पर प्रोन्नति को कुल प्रोफेसरों के 10% तक सीमित कर दिया गया है और उसके लिए पाँच उपाधि-प्राप्त पीएच-डी के अकेले निर्देशन की शर्त रखी गई है।
7. सीनियर प्रोफेसर तक प्रोन्नति कॉलेजों में भी होनी चाहिए।
8. सीधी नियुक्ति के विपरीत, एसोसिएट प्रोफेसर के रूप में प्रोन्नति में एक उपाधि-प्राप्त पीएच-डी के निर्देशन की शर्त जोड़ दी गयी है।

अन्य सरोकार

• डीटीएफ़ के नेतृत्व में डूटा ने यूजीसी रेग्युलेशंस 2018 की उन विसंगतियों की एक सूची तैयार की थी जिन्हें दूर करने की ज़रूरत है। वर्तमान नेतृत्व ने 2021 में इस वायदे के साथ चुनाव जीता था कि कुछ ही महीनों के भीतर इन विसंगतियों को दूर किया जाएगा। अब उस पर एकदम चुप्पी है।
• एसोसिएट प्रोफेसर को अध्ययन अवकाश देने के इंकार एक भेदभाव है।
• ‘प्रोफेसर्स ऑफ़ प्रैक्टिस’ स्कीम के ज़रिये ग़ैर-विशेषज्ञों की लैटरल एंट्री शिक्षण-अधिगम और शोध की प्रक्रियाओं को और कमज़ोर करेगी।
• कान्ट्रैक्ट वाली नियुक्तियों पर 10% की हदबंदी हटा दी गई है।
• सेवानिवृत्ति की आयु के मामले में लाइब्रेरीअन और फिज़िकल एजुकेशन के डायरेक्टरों को बराबरी।
• इन्स्ट्रक्टर्स के लिए प्रोन्नति की स्कीम नहीं दी गई है।
• अब कुलपतियों को अकादमिक क्षेत्र से होने की ज़रूरत नहीं है। कुलपतियों की नियुक्ति के लिए सर्च कमेटी का प्रस्तावित काम्पज़िशन संस्थानों की स्वायत्तता छीन लेता है। यही वजह है कि राज्य सरकारें इस मसौदे को स्वीकार करने से मुकर रही हैं।

साथियो, एनईपी-2020 की ही तरह ड्राफ़्ट रेग्युलेशंस 2025 के देश की उच्च शिक्षा के लिए भयावह दुष्परिणाम होंगे। ऐसा लगता है कि सरकार ने स्वीकार कर लिया है कि एनईपी-2020 के चलते पाठ्यचर्या में अकादमिक गहनता कमतर हुई है लेकिन नीति की दिशा की समीक्षा करने के लिए वह तैयार नहीं है। ये ड्राफ़्ट रेग्युलेशंस शैक्षणिक संस्थानों को सेल्फ-फाइनैन्सिंग/ बाज़ार पर निर्भरता की ओर धकेलने वाली साज़िश को बल देते हैं। अधिकारी अपनी पसंद के लोगों को नौकरी देने, पुरस्कृत और दंडित करने की शक्ति से सम्पन्न होंगे। मौजूदा शासकों के कॉर्पोरेट भाई-भतीजों के हाथ सार्वजनिक उच्च शिक्षा संस्थानों को सौंप देने की इस साज़िश को शिकस्त देने के लिए हमें एक होकर उठ खड़े होना होगा।

Oppose the step-by-step commercialisation and privatisation.

Vote DTF, Elect Mithuraaj Dhusiya to the EC

The Draft UGC Regulations 2025, indicatively decoupled from pay revision, aims to align recruitment and promotion rules with NEP-2020. To carry out the task of raising revenue (self-financing), it provides governing authorities of institutions the following powers:

1. Hire individuals, including those outside the academia (lateral entry), of their choice through diluted recruitment norms and “notable contributions”.
2. Reward / punish each teacher / academic staff through promotion rules. Apart from teaching and research, to be eligible for promotion, a teacher requires four out 9 listed “notable contributions”
3. “notable contributions” include: a) securing significant funding for research, infrastructure development, community programmes, start-ups, b) promotion of online mode of education and finding internships for students, c) promoting Indian languages and government-imagined “Indian Knowledge System” and d) innovative teaching.

A PhD degree becomes mandatory for all promotions beyond Level 10 to Level 11. The benefit of counting of ad-hoc services for promotion is threatened.

The insertion of “notable contributions” as a condition for eligibility for recruitment and promotion at levels in Clause 3.8 and subsequent clauses of the Draft undermines teaching and research and prioritises non-academic activities. It gives arbitrary powers to the selection committees and at the same time is a more stringent, horrendous and irrational quantification than the current API based system (See box below for UGC Chairperson’s statements).

The DTF had brought to public notice the IDP adopted by DU. It admits that only 76.6% of its expenditure is funded by the UGC and plans to eventually divest itself from public funding altogether. This Draft should be viewed as part of that step-by-step move to make universities and colleges find financial resources from the market. Raising revenue is proposed to be part of a teacher’s job. Cost cutting involves denial of promotion and other service benefits on this ground.

The UGC Chairperson admits that “notable contributions” will be quantified in the following manner!!
“Higher education must be a transformative force”: UGC Chief on Draft Regulations 2025
https://www.edexlive.com/news/2025/Jan/10/higher-education-must-be-a-transformative-force-ugc-chief-on-controversial-draft-regulations-2025

“The selection committee consists of three subject experts who will use suitable criteria to quantify the “notable contributions,” ensuring that these are inclusive of diverse academic and non-academic pursuits. Out of the nine contributions, applicants must show notable contributions in four areas. They can be evaluated by limiting subjectivity.

• Consultancy/sponsored research funding: … a straightforward metric expressed in monetary terms.

• Digital content creation for MOOCs: … number of courses/modules created, the number of learners enrolled, and completion rates …

• Start-up: …: … registration status, funding amount raised, and proof of successful government, angel, or venture capital funding.

• Research or teaching lab development: … number of labs established, the equipment installed, the number of students/researchers using the facilities, or the research output generated.

• Student internship/project supervision: … number of students supervised, completed projects, or internships arranged, along with feedback scores or outcomes.

• Innovative teaching contribution: … student feedback, the number of innovative practices introduced, their adoption rate, and student outcomes…

• Teaching contributions in Indian languages: … number of courses taught in Indian languages, students enrolled, and materials developed.

• Teaching-learning and research in the Indian Knowledge System: Measurable aspects could include publications, courses introduced, or research output in this domain.

• Community Engagement and Service: Quantifiable aspects include the number of community programmes organised, participation rates, and outcomes achieved.”

UGC Guidelines redfines Workload: 

Teachers placed under the mercy of the management, to be deployed for odd jobs 8 hours everyday! 

The quotations from the Draft UGC Guidelines 2025 reproduced below make it clear as to why no maximum teaching hours a teacher can be made to undertake is missing in the Draft UGC Regulations 2025. Because there isn’t any stipulated maximum less than 8 hours a day. The management of each institution is to decide the breakup of those hours:

⁠“The time spent by teachers in teaching-learning processes and the time used for research and other academic activities shall be decided by the HEIs…” (4.2)

⁠“ teaching-learning processes include classroom teaching, practical, innovation labs, class projects, assignments, tutorials; sports and games, physical activities, social work, NCC, examinations, assessments; vocational education, training and skilling, project work, field visits, internship, apprenticeship, etc.” (4.1)

⁠“Considering the shifting of focus from classroom education to competency and outcome-based learning, the work commitments of the teachers in full employment should not be less than eight hours per working day.” (4.1)

⁠“ Teachers are required to be present at the workplace of the HEI during working hours.” (4.2)

The Draft Regulations and the Draft Guidelines place the responsibility of meeting the following objectives of NEP-2020 on every teacher: 1) mobilising revenue for HEIs to eventually become self-financing, 2) contributing to online education (the primary instrument for doubling intake into higher education), 3) bearing the burden of finding internship and apprenticeship avenues for students in line with the unthinking obsession to vocationalise all streams of education, and 4) glorifying and instilling pride in whatever the Government wishes to promote as “Indian Knowledge Systems”. The consequences for teaching, learning and research will be devastating. 

Recruitment

1. Subject specialisation to be determined not by the Master’s degree, but by the subject in which the candidate has a PhD or NET. This undermines the academic rigour of Master’s degrees.In the 4th year, the reality will remain that many students will be forced to do coaching for PG entrance exams. They will prefer GEs over DSEs. This will decrease value of their degree.
2. Scrapping the screening procedure based on academic degrees, teaching experience and research publications and recruitment on the basis of 100% weighting of the judgement of selection committees allow more room for arbitrariness and non-academic considerations.

Counting of Past Service

1. Teachers of Delhi University have been demanding that past service be counted at all stages of promotion, the Draft restricts countable service to selection made through Selection Committees mandated by the UGC. Ad-hoc teachers in Delhi University have been appointed as per the DU EC Resolution. This threatens the benefit of counting past service even for the first stage of promotion.
2. While post-doc experience in foreign institutions is counted because of the emoluments received, the experience of those in Indian institutions is not counted because of lack of salary parity. This anomaly needs to be addressed.

Other Issues with Promotion

1. In place of Screening Committee for the first two stages of promotion, Selection Committee is proposed in the Draft
2. The requirement for a PhD for promotion to Level 12 is draconian.
3. Requirement of “notable contributions in four areas out of the nine listed”, which have no direct bearing on teaching and research, will lead to a complete dilution and diversion of teachers’ energies into academically meaningless activities.
4. The number of publications required for direct recruitment to the post of Associate Professor in the university has been increased from 7 to 8.
5. The Draft Regulations finally recognise the importance of books and book chapters. However, it remains to be seen whether the University will honour them. After all, the University has already violated the UGC Regulations of 2018 for promotion and recruitment by counting only publications in Scopus or UGC-CARE listed journals.
6. Promotion to Senior Professor (Level 15) has been limited to 10% of Professors and requires sole supervision of 5 awarded PhDs.
7. Promotion to Senior Professor should be introduced in colleges.
8. As opposed to direct recruitment, promotion to Associate Professor additionally requires sole supervision of the awarding of a PhD.

Other Concerns

• The DTF-led DUTA had prepared a detailed list of anomalies in the UGC Regulations 2018 that needed to be addressed. The present leadership won elections in 2021 on the promise that the anomalies would be addressed within a few months. Now there is a shroud of silence around these anomalies.
• The denial of study leave to Associate Professors is discriminatory.
• Lateral entry of non-specialists through Professors of Practice schemes will lead to further dilution of the teaching-learning and research processes.
• The cap of 10% on contractual appointments has been removed.
• Parity of Librarians and Directors of PE in terms of retirement age.
• Promotion scheme for Instructors is missing.
• Vice-Chancellors will no longer have to be academics. The proposed composition of the Search Committee for appointment of Vice-Chancellors takes away the autonomy of the institutions. This is precisely why State Governments are unwilling to accept the Draft Regulations.

Friends, the Draft Regulations 2025 in line with the NEP-2020 will have disastrous consequences for higher education in the country. It seems that the government has accepted that the NEP-2020 has led to the deterioration of academic rigour in the curriculum but is unwilling to review the policy direction. The Draft Regulations reinforce the design of forcing educational institutions into self-financing / dependence on the market. Authorities will be empowered to hire, reward and punish individuals of their choice. We must rise as one to defeat this nefarious design to hand over public higher education institutions to the corporate cronies of the ruling dispensation.

Save Teachers, Save Education

Vote DTF, Elect Mithuraaj Dhusiya to the EC

The last meeting of the Academic Council was held on 27.12.2024. Some of the notes submitted on agenda items before it reproduced below along with summaries of some notes placed during Zero Hour of the meeting. These notes reflect many of the concerns of teachers about teaching-learning, working conditions and service conditions.

The DTF is of the view that without serious and sincere critical engagements with policy decisions taken in the statutory bodies such as the AC and the EC, teacher representation loses its meaning. Elected Teacher representation is a provision we fought for precisely for that role. Grievous future awaits us if elected representatives reduce themselves to administration’s subordinates. We are passing through critical times requiring reversal of the current policy directions. Elections do provide an occasion to communicate teachers’ views.  Elect DTF candidates to AC & EC

Fourth year of the UGCF 2022: Continuing with our mistakes? (Agenda Item 5-3)

While the proposal is silent on the learning outcomes for a student, it lists outcomes as are demanded in case of paid projects. The outcomes for the three tracks are listed without any study of apriors that may be required to achieve them. Time for library work and self-study available to a student in the UGCF structure, student-teacher ratio, current teaching and administrative workload of teachers and infrastructure requirements are amongst important inputs which will govern learning outcomes.

1. The outcomes expected cannot be achieved because apart from dissertation writing/academic project/entrepreneurship, a student will be overburdened every semester with study of four papers, each of 4 credits.
2. With the erosion of the focus on major discipline (as opposed to what we had in all earlier academic structures) and with fragmentation of student’s attention by burdening them with 7 papers in each semester, the training of students has been jeopardized in the UGCF 2022. To expect these outcomes is unrealistic.
3. Under UGCF, teachers have been overburdened by large group teaching. If guiding these UG projects will be over and above their direct teaching hours, it is difficult to achieve these outcomes.
4. If the University is not stipulating any minimum CGPA required for the entry into the fourth year or opting amongst these tracks, then these outcomes are not possible.
5. Infrastructure for research has not been developed by the University. Reading rooms and research labs for students and individual rooms for teachers are must to make any serious attempt at this.
6. We fear that en-masse academic projects or research will lead to borrowed and plagiarized material.
7. Through its insistence on Scopus publications, the University might be pushing the system towards meaningless publications and mal practices with students paying for publications or claiming publications without working towards it.

Some suggestions for consideration are as follows:

1. In the 4th year, the number of Core papers should be increased to three, with a choice between DSE/GE so that student can earn a minor: 3 Core + 1DSE/GE. Only then DU students will be able to compete with others with their 1-year MA. It does not make sense to have an option of 2 GEs per semester. Our experience is that students choose lukewarm courses to cope with the load.
   In the 4th year, the reality will remain that many students will be forced to do coaching for PG entrance exams. They will prefer GEs over DSEs. This will decrease value of their degree.
2. We should have an option of a research oriented DSE (4 credits) along with a complimentary discipline Specific SEC (2 credits) in lieu of Research/Academic Project. This will help institutions to carry forward UG research without over burdening the system, teachers and students. Teachers will be able to make an attempt at doing good work with interested students.
3. The credit distribution of the 4th year papers should be changed so that students have fewer papers. This will help students to find time for self-study and research. We propose:
   Two core papers of 6 credits; 1 DSE/GE of 4 credits; (1 DSE +1 SEC)/ Research/Academic Project of 6 credits

Annexure to agenda item 5-3 needs to be reviewed to make the fourth year more meaningful and realistic with our focus on inputs and learning outcomes.

PGCF 2024: Are we compounding our mistakes? (Agenda Item 5-2)

The exercise of drafting structure and coursework of the two-year PG (PGCF 2024) should be undertaken after studying issues which have worried teachers since the implementation of the UGCF 2022.

While the University is ready to provide all possible “choices” to students; like a self-goal, it is not ready to grant academic freedom to its departments and teachers which is necessary in drawing a meaningful structure and coursework. “One shoe fits all” slogan and obstinacy cannot help us to achieve academic rigour and excellence.

Instead of having a fixed structure for all PG courses, Faculties and departments should be given academic freedom to draft their structures with a prescribed range of total credits per semester/in the degree programme.

The distribution of credits amongst DSCs and DSEs should be the prerogative of the Department. The Academic Council may provide a guideline.

In the UGCF 2022, while all Honours degree programmes stand diluted because of the decrease in the credits per paper (of the DSCs. DSEs and GEs); science programmes have taken a special beating. While the lab components in courses with the distribution 3L+1P have been rendered meaningless, theory component in papers with distribution 2L +2P remains totally sacrificed. By changing font-size or by skipping writing topics explicitly in the syllabi, dilution in the UGCF 2022 cannot be masked. We ask if 2-hour labs or 2-hour theory papers will make sense in the post graduate degree programmes? Can we not have Core papers of six credits?

For a programme of a duration of two years, it does not make sense to have three possible tracks for the second year. Do we have infrastructure to cater to “choices” that students will make? Is it possible to design coursework which provides equally to all three tracks?

The outcomes listed are unrealistic and are not based on any study of current outputs of dissertations or similar studies which students have done in the past years.

Outcomes are listed without any study of apriors required to achieve them. Time available to students for self-study and library work, student-teacher ratio, current teaching and administrative workload of teachers and infrastructure requirements are amongst important inputs which will govern the outcome.

We see that administration’s unholy love for Scopus publications continues. Through its insistence on Scopus publications, the University might be pushing the system towards meaningless publications and mal practices with students paying for publications or claiming publications without working towards it.

The proposal needs to be reviewed.

While the proposal is silent on the learning outcomes for a student, it lists outcomes as are demanded in case of paid projects. The outcomes for the three tracks are listed without any study of apriors that may be required to achieve them. Time for library work and self-study available to a student in the UGCF structure, student-teacher ratio, current teaching and administrative workload of teachers and infrastructure requirements are amongst important inputs which will govern learning outcomes.

1. The outcomes expected cannot be achieved because apart from dissertation writing/academic project/entrepreneurship, a student will be overburdened every semester with study of four papers, each of 4 credits.
2. With the erosion of the focus on major discipline (as opposed to what we had in all earlier academic structures) and with fragmentation of student’s attention by burdening them with 7 papers in each semester, the training of students has been jeopardized in the UGCF 2022. To expect these outcomes is unrealistic.
3. Under UGCF, teachers have been overburdened by large group teaching. If guiding these UG projects will be over and above their direct teaching hours, it is difficult to achieve these outcomes.
4. If the University is not stipulating any minimum CGPA required for the entry into the fourth year or opting amongst these tracks, then these outcomes are not possible.
5. Infrastructure for research has not been developed by the University. Reading rooms and research labs for students and individual rooms for teachers are must to make any serious attempt at this.
6. We fear that en-masse academic projects or research will lead to borrowed and plagiarized material.
7. Through its insistence on Scopus publications, the University might be pushing the system towards meaningless publications and mal practices with students paying for publications or claiming publications without working towards it.

Some suggestions for consideration are as follows:

1. In the 4th year, the number of Core papers should be increased to three, with a choice between DSE/GE so that student can earn a minor: 3 Core + 1DSE/GE. Only then DU students will be able to compete with others with their 1-year MA. It does not make sense to have an option of 2 GEs per semester. Our experience is that students choose lukewarm courses to cope with the load.

In the 4th year, the reality will remain that many students will be forced to do coaching for PG entrance exams. They will prefer GEs over DSEs. This will decrease value of their degree.

2. We should have an option of a research oriented DSE (4 credits) along with a complimentary discipline Specific SEC (2 credits) in lieu of Research/Academic Project. This will help institutions to carry forward UG research without over burdening the system, teachers and students. Teachers will be able to make an attempt at doing good work with interested students.
3. The credit distribution of the 4th year papers should be changed so that students have fewer papers. This will help students to find time for self-study and research. We propose:

Two core papers of 6 credits; 1 DSE/GE of 4 credits; (1 DSE +1 SEC)/ Research/Academic Project of 6 credits

Annexure to agenda item 5-3 needs to be reviewed to make the fourth year more meaningful and realistic with our focus on inputs and learning outcomes.

PGCF 2024: Are we compounding our mistakes? (Agenda Item 5-2)

The exercise of drafting structure and coursework of the two-year PG (PGCF 2024) should be undertaken after studying issues which have worried teachers since the implementation of the UGCF 2022.

While the University is ready to provide all possible “choices” to students; like a self-goal, it is not ready to grant academic freedom to its departments and teachers which is necessary in drawing a meaningful structure and coursework. “One shoe fits all” slogan and obstinacy cannot help us to achieve academic rigour and excellence.

Instead of having a fixed structure for all PG courses, Faculties and departments should be given academic freedom to draft their structures with a prescribed range of total credits per semester/in the degree programme.

The distribution of credits amongst DSCs and DSEs should be the prerogative of the Department. The Academic Council may provide a guideline.

In the UGCF 2022, while all Honours degree programmes stand diluted because of the decrease in the credits per paper (of the DSCs. DSEs and GEs); science programmes have taken a special beating. While the lab components in courses with the distribution 3L+1P have been rendered meaningless, theory component in papers with distribution 2L +2P remains totally sacrificed. By changing font-size or by skipping writing topics explicitly in the syllabi, dilution in the UGCF 2022 cannot be masked. We ask if 2-hour labs or 2-hour theory papers will make sense in the post graduate degree programmes? Can we not have Core papers of six credits?

For a programme of a duration of two years, it does not make sense to have three possible tracks for the second year. Do we have infrastructure to cater to “choices” that students will make? Is it possible to design coursework which provides equally to all three tracks?

The outcomes listed are unrealistic and are not based on any study of current outputs of dissertations or similar studies which students have done in the past years.

Outcomes are listed without any study of apriors required to achieve them. Time available to students for self-study and library work, student-teacher ratio, current teaching and administrative workload of teachers and infrastructure requirements are amongst important inputs which will govern the outcome.

We see that administration’s unholy love for Scopus publications continues. Through its insistence on Scopus publications, the University might be pushing the system towards meaningless publications and mal practices with students paying for publications or claiming publications without working towards it.

The proposal needs to be reviewed.

Concerns over VACs (Agenda Item 4-3)

Value addition courses, while intended to enrich students’ learning experiences, often lack the academic rigor and practical relevance necessary to justify their inclusion in educational curricula.

Courses such as Vikshit Bharat exemplify this concern, as they neither enhance meaningful value nor provide substantial academic content. Instead, they impose additional burdens on students without offering clear benefits.

Similarly, the four proposed courses based on the Bhagavad Gita—Gita for Holistic Life, Gita for Leadership Excellence, Gita for a Sustainable Universe, and Gita for Navigating Life Challenges— raise significant concerns. In their formulation, these courses suffer from overlapping content and a lack of critical analysis. By relying exclusively on a single source—the Gita—they fail to acknowledge the diversity of value systems and the richness of other value-generating experiences, such as everyday life lessons, cultural practices, and community living. This narrow focus risks promoting orthodoxy rather than fostering a pluralistic and inclusive perspective.

Furthermore, while the Gita is undoubtedly a valuable philosophical and ethical text, its application in contemporary contexts must be critically assessed rather than upheld as an unquestionable source of guidance. Academic institutions have a responsibility to promote diverse viewpoints and critical thinking. Overemphasizing one source of values undermines this objective and may alienate students who draw inspiration from other cultural or philosophical traditions.

Thus, we, the undersigned members, register our dissent against these courses, urging the institution to reconsider its design and adopt a more inclusive, critical, and academically rigorous approach to value education.

Note regarding ‘Twinning Arrangement’ with reputed foreign Universities (Agenda Item 5-1)

We wish to highlight the following regarding the proposal:

1. Twinning programmes along with the ABC regulations, which were adopted earlier, are ways of devaluing coursework and courses offered in the degree programmes at University of
2. In the name of “choice”, through Twinning Programmes students are being lured into buying credits from foreign campuses. Twinning programs will often be more expensive than traditional degrees due to additional fees and living costs associated with studying abroad. MoUs will not only bring these options to a very few students, but also only to a certain class of students. To those who can afford them, Twinning programmes will provide a way to augment the DU degree with the brand name of a foreign university. Like self-financing courses, Twinning Programmes will lead to further privatisation.
3. Clause 19a stipulates that “One or two outstanding meritorious students belonging to economically weaker background shall be supported by the University for undergoing twinning arrangement in a FHEI, subject to availability of funds.” The clause is ambiguous as it does not talk in terms of percentage of students who will be provided Also, the proposal does not promise scholarship as such. The low number and the caveat about availability of funds make it essentially meaningless.
   The Twinning Programme erodes the idea of equity, accessibility and affordability. It will become a way of creating degrees which will be more marketable than regular DU degree, thus further marginalising students coming from disadvantageous socio-economic backgrounds.
4. By allowing students to go for Twinning Programmes for a semester in any of Semester III/V/VII and without requiring students to complete equivalent/corresponding courses or appear for these papers in due course, the University is treating its own Core Papers as The University seems to be arguing that there is more value in studying abroad for a semester than to have continuity of coursework.
5. The proposal is silent about issues which may arise in Twinning Programmes. It may be difficult to ensure a smooth flow of credits and align the course content between institutions, potentially causing gaps in knowledge or unnecessary repetition.

We do not see any advantage in this proposal at the undergraduate level. Twinning Programmes may become academically more important at the level of post-graduation/research where students may enrich their course of study by augmenting it with skills/resources that are not available in the University.

SPECIAL MENTION IN THE ZERO HOUR

Deepening crisis in the 12 Delhi Government Funded Colleges

Today, four months after the Joint AC-EC meeting on the issue, we wish to ask the Vice Chancellor and his team about steps taken towards resolving the issue amicably and/or efforts towards securing 100% UGC funding.

Except for one elected member from the Court to the EC, all in the Joint meeting had accepted that the Central Government and the UGC should be approached. While the Delhi Government must be made to fulfil its financial obligations, UGC funding of colleges functioning under a Central University would provide a lasting solution.

NFS: Intent and Processes under question

The recent results of the Department of Hindi have shocked everyone. NFS in an old, well-established Department with a huge base raise questions over both the intent of the University and the process of screening.

Our letters to the Vice Chancellor on (i) “Not Found Suitable” (NFS) cases in teaching posts of Reserved Categories in Delhi University (dated 14.8.2024) and (ii) Screening and promotion criteria violating the UGC Regulations 2018 (dated 10.7.2024), show how these criteria are responsible for increased numbers of NFS.

The UGC Regulations allow publications in peer reviewed journals towards eligibility in promotions and appointment of teachers in the department. The University’s insistence that only publications in Scopus indexed journals or the UGC CARE list would count has caused teachers already working in Departments to be declared ineligible. Their research work has been nullified.

This reinforces the existing conditions of exclusion of teachers and research scholars from reserved categories. Weeding out candidates at the screening stage disguises such exclusion and subverts the constitutional imperative of social justice.

Uncritical and obsessive insistence on Scopus indexed publication as the definitive metric of the academic quality for recruitment, promotion, grants, and PhD is unwarranted. Not enough journals relevant to several disciplines are listed in the index.

We demand that the Ordinances for promotions, the screening criteria as well as the PhD Ordinance be aligned to the UGC Regulations.

Counting of Past Services

We appeal to the Vice Chancellor to impress upon the UGC to count the entire past services of teachers towards promotions and retirement benefits.

The UGC Regulation 2018 identifies ad-hoc services of any duration/length to be counted towards past services. However, it limits counting of past services towards the first promotion (from 10 AL to 11 AL) only. Many teachers have become permanent after serving for several years. Further, full pension under UPS requires completion of 25 years of service.

Similarly, the entire past service of Temporary teachers be treated as continuous and be counted towards all benefits. They have served their colleges for over a decade against posts which were not filled on time.

We appeal to the Academic Council to constitute a Standing Committee which can draft a report for the consideration of the UGC.

Restoration of WUS facilities for all teaching and non-teaching employees

We demand the restoration of WUS facilities for all teaching and non-teaching employees of Delhi University who wish to do so.

Prevailing Chaos in DU: Legitimate reasons to withdraw from CUET

Staggered academic calendars have caused a lot of chaos in the University. Teachers are expected to invigilate, evaluate and teach at the same time. Lack of infrastructure has forced periodic recourse to online teaching. While the DU Academic Calendar notifies 2.12.2025 as the beginning of Sem IV and VI, exams for Sem III and V have been scheduled till 10.1.2025.

Further, while the delays in admissions have caused seats in several courses to remain vacant, DU forcing 20% excess admission has worsened student-teacher ratio in many courses in campus colleges.

In the Law Faculty, arbitrary orders of “remedial classes” and postponement of exams have caused hardship to teachers and regular students.

There seems to be a systemic collapse. We need to explore how best to ensure timely admissions and synchronise Academic Calendars.

Some of the other issues raised in the Zero Hour:

1. The SOP dated 3.6.2024 and DU Notification of 20.7.2023 add another layer “shortlisting’ of candidates for recruitment by a committee having the same composition as the Selection Committee. Such over-centralisation is not required by the UGC Regulations and was not discussed in the Academic Council. We seek its review.
2. Ad-hoc appointments against short term vacancies arising from leave or retirements should be resumed. Full time vacancies should be filled through appointments of full-time teachers as they perform many other duties besides teaching. The UGC Regulations 2018 acknowledges ad-hoc services.
3. There is an inordinate delay in promotions of teachers in certain colleges. These delays have caused harassment of teachers.
4. Teachers who have been promoted as Associate Professors are not eligible for either Study Leave or Sabbatical till such time as they complete 7 years. Consequently, many teachers have to decline prestigious fellowships offered by Institutions in India or abroad. Solutions must be found to avoid such serious personal and institutional academic set-back.
5. DU Letter dated 18.5.2023 in reference to the EC Resolution 44 and 45, dated 8.12.2023, has notified written tests for Librarians and teachers of Physical Education in violation of UGC Regulations.
6. Faculty of CEMDE (Bio-diversity Parks) are still awaiting implementation of the 7 CPC. We request resolution of the matter without further delay.
7. Instructors in colleges still await promotion schemes and their correct placement in Grade Pays. This issue needs urgent redressal.
8. Retirement age of teachers of Physical Education. Delhi University is violating its own EC Resolutions and Ordinances in reducing the retirement age of Associate Professors in Physical Education from 65 to 62 years. It sets back the progress made in this important field by at least thirty years.
9. Many colleges are not following the UGC Regulations on direct teaching hours. Colleagues promoted to Associate Professor under CAS 2018 are being forced to teach for 16 hours. The answer to the crisis caused by EWS Expansion without additional teachers or new courses cannot overburden the existing faculty.
10. The University has been illegally making recoveries from teachers in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment of 2014 that prohibits recovery from retired teachers or those on the verge of retirement or those in whose case over payment was made by the administration more than five years before it was discovered and notified to teacher.
11. Newly appointed teachers in many Departments are still awaiting allotment of rooms and labs while several rooms and labs are still occupied by retired teachers or kept locked by them. Crisis is deep in Departments like Chemistry where research is predominately experimental and requires lab spaces.
12. Out of turn house allotment on DU Campus is unfortunate. Many houses, which are vacant, are not shown on the website and are quietly allotted. Seniority needs to be followed strictly in house allotment to maintain transparency.
13. Mistreatment of Ms. Sharmishta Atreja, a 100 percent visually impaired faculty member of the Department of Philosophy, is extremely unfortunate and unacceptable. The harassment meted out to Ms. Atreja is symptomatic of the larger malaise plaguing the University of Delhi. The University has repeatedly failed to honour the rights and dignity of life of its PwBD category students and employees.
14. Computer Science courses and other self-financing courses in colleges should be regularised. While we appreciate that the process has been initiated by the University, relief is yet to come to all units. Similarly, B.Tech. and Integrated Programmes in LLB should become regular courses. Diversion of teaching posts from other Departments towards self-financing courses will worsen student-teacher ratio for other courses. The University should seek posts and funding for these.

Given the nature of the challenges, electing representatives whose primary responsibility is not to please the Union Government, the Delhi Government, or the DU administration is paramount. Regrettably, many elected representatives, including the current DUTA leadership, have reduced themselves to cheerleaders of those wielding power, as evidenced by their refusal to register dissent and inform teachers of the detrimental policy changes that adversely affect teachers and education.

The DTF firmly believes that the well-being of teachers and the state of the learning environment are intrinsically linked and mutually reinforcing. Unwise corporate-driven policy changes that adversely affect learning environment are bound to negatively impact teachers. Those who promise one while simultaneously asking us to ignore the other are either short-sighted or driven by other considerations.

The academic restructuring, such as the FYUP, the ill-conceived admission policy (CUET) leading to delayed admissions, or the denial of additional teaching posts or infrastructure following the increase in student intake due to EWS reservation in admissions demonstrate the intentions of the Government and our University authorities. For those who still have doubts, the Institutional Development Plan (IDP) presented to the Academic Council and the Executive Committee recently makes it amply clear – that DU is now only 76.6% dependent on governmental funding and seeks to become “independent” of it. Consequently, look to the market for funding and restructure academic programs, activities, and service conditions appropriately to facilitate self-financing. Commercialization and eventual privatization, in short. Once we permit this, resisting the determination of teachers’ service conditions based on their commercial value would become exceedingly challenging.

Teachers, employees and retirees of the 12 Delhi Government colleges are bearing the brunt of repeated grant freeze and cuts by the Delhi Government which impact salaries, pensions, medical reimburse-ments, and so on. Students have been denied essential infrastructural facilities necessary for an effective learning environment. The Delhi Government’s mis-conceived notions of their role in governance reveals their complete lack of understanding of how educational institutions ought to function. In contrast to mere posturing and superficial political maneuverings by the University administration and the DUTA leadership, the DTF has been advocating for the unification of the struggle against the Delhi Government for funding with the urgent demand for UGC funding of these colleges. This would provide a more secure and long-term solution for colleges under a central university.

The stalling of permanent appointments in these 12 colleges has caused immense uncertainty and harassment for our colleagues working in ad hoc capacity. Equally unacceptable is stalling of appointments in St Stephen’s and Shyam Lal College (Evening). The arbitrary changes introduced by the University in the eligibility criteria constitute an unjust blow to these colleagues and others displaced from various colleges.

Since January 1, 2004, teachers and other employees recruited after that date have been compelled to join the New Pension Scheme, which the DTF has consistently regarded as a no-pension scheme. The current DUTA leadership has declined to participate in the broader struggle of government employees, as well as that of the FEDCUTA, for the restoration of the Old Pension Scheme (which provided an assured pension and a GPF). In response to this struggle, the government is attempting to deceive by presenting a middle ground scheme called the Unified Pension Scheme. This scheme promises an assured pension but is based on employees’ contributions, unlike the old scheme, where no deductions were made from salaries for pension purposes.

Counting of total length of past service at every stage of promotion is an urgent issue, especially for those teachers who have recently become permanent after having worked in temporary or ad hoc capacities for long years. Furthermore, their past service should be factored into leave entitlement and pension eligibility. Temporary teachers’ service should be treated as continuous, and their entire past service should be counted for all benefits.

Not only that the University has failed to bring the UGC promotion scheme for Instructors or implement 7 CPC in certain Centers, but it is also now trying to undo our gains from years of struggle. It is extremely unfortunate that there was no resistance in the Executive Council against such attacks on the gains of teachers’ movement. Many decisions taken by the University are adversely affecting the career progression of teachers, such as the adoption of Ordinances in violation of conditions laid down in the UGC Regulations 2018 for promotions and recruitments, the new screening criteria implemented for recruitment at the College level, shift towards Scopus indexed journals and changes made for the recruitment of Physical Education and Librarians by introducing a written test. The new recruitment rules have led to an increase in cases of “no candidate shortlisted” and NFS in Departments. Ph.D. Regulations, which allows college teachers to supervise students, are being violated in many departments. Elected members in the EC as well as the DUTA leadership are complicit in their silence.

Emboldened by this silence, principals are treating colleges as their fiefdom and have targeted teachers by delaying promotions or extending probation periods. Going beyond the UGC Regulations 2018, some principals are insisting on an “interaction” for promotions from 10 AL to 11 Al and 11 AL to 12 AL.

Teachers of St Stephen’s fear stalling of promotions owing to DU-College conflict. University approval for the increment cuts of 7 Hindu College teachers, after nearly a decade while the matter is pending for judicial review, is a signal that ought not be ignored.

The University has been illegally making recoveries from teachers in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment of 2014. This has caused great financial hardship to hundreds of teachers. Recent DU Notification regarding WUS an unjust imposition. Unfortunately, the DUTA has completely failed teachers.

Ad-hoc appointment has been arbitrarily banned by the University. Full time vacancies should be filled through appointments of full-time teachers. Increase in guestism is detrimental both for the institutions as well as those wanting to join teaching profession.

The demand for setting up UGC Pay review committee is urgent given the Union Government’s apparent disinterest, obviously linked to the attempt to withdraw from funding. We must be prepared for hurdles like the Government asking Universities to raise resources to meet 30% or more of the expenditure towards revised pay.

The University administration and the government must be compelled to respond to teachers’ concerns about the academic restructuring, the demotivation of teachers and students due to the excessive burden on students with large numbers of meaningless papers, increased lecture class sizes, tutorials, and practical groups, and the uncertainty surrounding workload.

University spaces have become platforms for babas and pracharaks, demanding reverence and not interrogation of their views. Many important subjects of study such as Constitutional law, discrimination, feminism, and Ambedkar proposed in the syllabi are under attack and the VC has authorized himself to intervene to make changes in consonance with the right-wing agenda.

Articulating opinions and building public opinion is essential if we are to make a difference. Forcing policy makers to respond to our concerns is what teacher representatives should do.

The DTF has a longstanding record of opposing anti-education policies. It has advocated and fought for public education and better service conditions for teachers. It stands committed to social and gender justice and equitable access to quality education for all sections of society. The DTF pledges to continue pursuing collective struggles in defense of these principles and appeals to teachers to elect people who are committed to these ideals.

For the Academic Council, the DTF has fielded the following four candidates:
Sanjeev Kaushal,  Monami Sinha, Jitendra Kumar Meena and Anumeha Mishra

Elect
Mithuraaj Dhusiya

to the Executive Council

and

Sanjeev Kaushal

Monami Sinha

Jitendra Kumar Meena

Anumeha Mishra

to the Academic Council