Why faculty rules in higher education require a rethink

In colleges across India, whether Engineering or Humanities, one lecturer may be appointed with a Master’s degree while another may require a doctorate. While this disparity often feels like an institutional inconsistency, from a policy perspective, these distinctions are rooted in the distinct mandates of India’s primary educational regulators.

The AICTE traditionally views Engineering as an applied discipline where industry readiness is the primary objective. Conversely, the UGC treats the Arts and Sciences as foundational research areas requiring the depth of inquiry validated by a PhD or NET. Legally, this classification is robust; as established in Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (1952), a regulatory distinction survives scrutiny if it rests on an “intelligible differentia” linked to a legitimate objective. Recent judicial precedents reaffirm that expert bodies hold the authority to fix appointment qualifications to ensure institutional efficiency.

Beyond legal theory, supply-side management plays a role. The demand for M.Tech holders in the private sector means that mandating a Ph.D. for entry-level Engineering lecturers could lead to systemic instability. In this context, the AICTE’s framework acts as a practical lifeline. In contrast, the Humanities operate within an oversubscribed talent pool, allowing for stricter academic filters.

The bottleneck

However, these justifications do not fully resolve the challenges faced by Humanities scholars. Unlike Engineering graduates, the academic track is often the only professional path in this stream and this is complicated by a scarcity of doctoral supervisors in specialised or regional disciplines. While the state’s prerogative to mandate high academic standards such as the Ph.D. is undisputed, its pursuit of excellence must be matched by a corresponding investment in doctoral infrastructure. There are times when a Ph.D. is required but access to it is structurally constrained due to limited supervision capacity or insufficient research vacancies. Then, the requirement risks functioning as an exclusionary barrier rather than a quality benchmark. For instance, in several niche Humanities disciplines such as Tamil epigraphy or regional philosophy, qualified doctoral supervisors are extremely scarce.

A significant hurdle lies in current Government Orders (GOs), which often stipulate that teaching experience is only counted from the date a faculty member obtains a PhD or qualifies for NET/SET. This policy can result in the abrupt exclusion of seasoned academics who entered the profession prior to acquiring these credentials. There is a strong case for recommending that once a faculty member obtains these qualifications, their entire prior teaching experience be duly recognised.

Furthermore, the academic community would benefit from recognising that pedagogical competencies in the Humanities are fundamentally consistent across institutional types. Teaching experience gained in Arts and Science colleges should be considered transferable to Engineering institutions. Such a policy would acknowledge the continuity of subject expertise and ensure that veteran educators are not penalised for the specific regulatory environment in which they began their careers.

Towards common ground

The gap between these worlds is beginning to narrow. Recent shifts have seen the AICTE move toward mandating Ph.D.s for senior promotions, while the UGC has made the Ph.D. optional at the entry-level for those who have cleared the NET or SET. To build on these corrections, the system could benefit from further nuanced reforms:

Graduated entry: Implementing provisional appointments for lecturers who commit to completing a doctorate within a specific timeframe.

Qualitative assessment: Integrating more analytical components into national eligibility tests.

Experience recognition: Validating full career longevity and allowing experience transferability between Arts and Engineering streams for Humanities faculty members to preserve institutional memory.

Ultimately, the classroom remains oblivious to the specific regulatory body governing the teacher. By reconciling regulatory rigour with structural accessibility and recognising the full value of a teacher’s tenure, India can protect its intellectual future and ensure its scholars continue to flourish.

Views expressed are personal and do not represent the views, policies, or positions of the institution the author works in.

The writer is Assistant Professor of English (Grade-II), Velammal Engineering College, Chennai.