I am really moved by the laborious efforts of my friend to convince all of us about the biased attitude of university authorities towards the challenged persons since times immemorial especially in the process of appointments of every nature. However, the elongations put forward in the long sermons do not catch my attention or echo my feelings that in any way I am fancied or attracted towards the sense of justice embedded in university authorities . Their attitude towards the challenged persons is visible to all of us who are in contact with said authorities since inception. We have constantly been fighting against such unscrupulous authorities since our childhood and we do not have much believe in the sense of justice prevailing in their hearts. We would continue to wage our struggle for the rights of PCPs till we achieve our goal. there is no conflict of opinion as far as the issues pertaining to getting our reserved posts fulfilled in departments and colleges in anyone's mind. As I pointed out earlier that the appointment process followed in Delhi University colleges is not only defective but also against the principles of natural justice. Neither it is fair nor it appears to be fair. The selection is made on the basis of interview of 3 to five minutes and it has 100% determining value. The other qualifications which one has achieved over the years have just eligibility value. Whether one is first class or first position holder is immaterial for determining the appointment of a candidate. even the long experience of teaching is not counted most of the times. Any candidate could be declared unsuitable at the whims and fancies of the 5 persons who are sitting in the interview. The interview is conducted as it is making selection for a private firm. And the interview is held for the post of a peon. There is absolutely no remedy against the unfair and arbitrary selection. At the out set, I have not opposed the implementation of roster system which has been deliberated upon in the judgment of Justice Seekri in 2001. At least our brethren would have got some thing out of that judgment. But even courts' verdicts are not adhered to by the appointing authorities. The roster system on which the university is relying is also very defective and is in fact an eye wash to get away with the reserved seats of SCs STs and PCPs. It seeks to implement reservation subjectwise and there is three percent reservation in each subject. Where as most of the subjects in a college have 2 to 10 teachers. You could well understand the fate of 3% reservation! The roster system says that while implementing the reservation the posts which would go to the PCPs is as under: The first 34th 67th and 100th post would go to the PCPs. and 4th 7th 13th 14th 21st 27th 28th 35th 41st 42nd 49th 55th 56th and so on posts would go to the SC and STs. most of our candidates are in the humanities and there are very few candidates are in commerce and natural sciences. The departments like Sanskrit and Urdu has only one teacher in most of the colleges. Under the given circumstances the colleges take full advantage of this roster system and virtually make no appointments. Most of the PCPs who have been appointed in DU have not been appointed due to this defective reservation policy. Rather they were appointed because of the pressures mounted up here and there some times by the courts and some times by some of the influential persons who had some soft corner for the PCPs. It would take atleast fifty to sixty years when we would have 34th post in a department where there are only 5 to 10 teachers are there. and It is unlikely that we would have any post where there are 1 to 3 teachers. But having said that I am not against my friends views that we should stress on the roster system which the university had itself suggested to the UGC and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. But if such appointments are centralized then the fate of PCPs could change radically. We have more than eight thousand teachers in the university and around 200 posts are created every year. Here we stand a good chance where we could make our genuine claims. As a student we have already succeeded in persuading the university to centralized the process of admissions for PCPs, SC and ST and it has succeeded in meeting our requirements to a greater extent. There is no reason why we can not force them to centralized the process of appointment for us. Delhi University has been created by an Act of Parliament and it has full power to amend its appointment procedure. Afterall this roster system is also its own creation. But I doubt this would be of much use for the PCPs under the given circumstances. Another elongation put forward by my friend is: I could not understood the contents of Advertisement is also baseless and without any reasons and rather is his own fancy. I am a student of law, Not only I can well read the contents of a document but also could read even between the lines. The advertisement was a response to our strong protest against the Dean of Colleges baseless statement in the Times of India on 14th April 2007 that "we don't have eligible candidates, to whom we should give job." " I told her you give ad in the newspapers just see how many candidates you would be getting who are waiting to get a suitable job for themselves. Most of the persons are underemployed. They are working as primary school teachers, clerks etc, despite, having astronomical qualifications. I never said that university has centralized the process of appointment rather this is a first step towards that process. If we would pressurize the authorities then only we would get some thing. Our struggle has to go a long way before we achieve some thing substantial. I never say that we should withdraw our cases from the High Court of Delhi against most of the colleges. This would not only maintain a pressure on the university but would also keep our struggle vibrant. Even Vice Chancellor also was of the opinion that You would get some thing because of your constant struggle. You should not relax. Rather you people should keep on making your efforts on and on. He was rather feeling sorry for not been able to do some thing substantial in this direction. However, I am not moved by such expressions of authorities. If they genuinely want to do some thing there is no body to stop them. Their personal considerations do not allow them to abide by the commitments towards social justice. Rather they are more prone towards making their political gains, which would serve them with more and more power of discretion, more often converted into discrimination. Last but not the least It is not that I have mis-understood some propositions rather it is you who has constantly misconstrued our efforts in this regards. If our aims are the same why not work together to achieve our goals. With love and care Vip
Dr. Vipin K. Malhotra President, Delhi University Physically Challenged Teachers' Association (DUPHCHTA), Reader, Deptt. of Political Science, Sri Aurobindo College, Delhi University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +919911113958 Email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Skype Id. vipin.malhotra ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nikhil Jain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:44 PM Subject: [AI] some clarifications > > This is in response to the ongoing discussion on nonimplementation of > reservation in teaching posts appointments in institutions of higher > learning with specific reference to D.U. > > It may be recalled that inspite of a resolution passed by the EC of DU in > 1994, the PWD act of 1995 and the judgment of Justice Sikri in 2001, > violation of the 100 point roster that identifies the seats due to be > reserved for the persons with disability has been chronic. It is pertinent > to point out that while violation has been committed by almost every > college affiliated to DU. The degree of violation is much higher in the > university departments where the university administration is directly > responsible for appointments. It is pertinent to emphasise here that even > after 13 years since the promulgation of EC resolution of 1994, not even a > single person with disability has been allowed to avail their > constitutionally and legally guaranteed right to gainful employment. > > These opening remarks are being made to set the ongoing discussion and the > differences of opinion expressed there in into context. It may be recalled > that the current discussion is based on conflicting evaluation of certain > moves made by the DU towards fulfillment of 100 point roster and the > backlog created owing to it's nonimplementation for several years. > > One of our esteemed discussant believes that the recent steps will have > salutary effects in resolving the problems in the implementation of > reservation policy for persons with disability. He argues that the current > initiative by DU amounts to centralization of appointment process for > disabled candidates. Further more, he argues that this would be beneficial > for disabled candidates since, in his opinion, the university authorities > are less biased than the college authorities. > > I will like to argue that not only has our friend misunderstood the > university advertisement No.Estab.IV/195/2007, dated May 8 2007, he also > tries to understand the university initiative by posing a wrong debate. I > would present my alternative on both these issues hoping to clarify some > of the confusions arising from the discussion. > > I believe that understanding nonimplementing of quota through perceived > biases of the appointing authorities may not take our struggle very far. > To begin with administrative bias is not the monopoly of the colleges. > Infact in the University of Delhi, the university authorities have been > much greater violators. As already pointed out, they have not appointed > even a single disabled candidate in the university departments. Therefore, > disabled candidates have to face administrative bias both in the colleges > and in the university. > > What is the way out then? I believe that way out is to compel the > authorities to implement the provisions of 100 point roster. The 100 point > roster guarantees two things. First, it identifies the seat due to be > reserved for disabled candidates i.e the first, 34th and 67th seats > falling vacant. Secondly it identifies the basic unit of calculating the > roster i.e the entire cadre of teaching posts in the college, and > faculties in the case of university departments. Such prior identification > of seats puts a stop at administrative manipulation which has been the > bane of reservation policy. > > Till date our experience has been that appointing authorities deny > appointments to disabled candidates by not identifying the seats due to be > reserved. Consequently disabled candidates have to appear with general > candidates in interviews, thus allowing authorities to reject them by > invoking the criteria of candidates "not found suitable". > > In fact compelling disabled candidates to compete with general candidates > in order to secure reservation is a violation of Indian reservation > policy. Indian reservation policy is quite clear that candidates from > different categories can not be made to compete with each-other. That is > why in every reservation roster seats due to be reserved are earmarked > category-wise. Even in 100 point roster, not only are the seats identified > for the reservation but at the same time the reserved seats are clearly > demarcated for different categories of disabilities. Dilution of these > provisions of 100 point roster is the route of all manipulation and the > resultant nonimplementation of reservation for persons with disability. > > Thus we see that nonimplementation is not a result of some vague biases > but a result of a tangible manipulation of 100 point roster. Hence I > believe that our evaluation of the recent initiative of the university > should be based on it's degree of fidelity with the 100 point roster. The > university advertisement fails in this litmus test. The advertisement > mentions several university departments (and not colleges as is being > confused) with vacancies. However, it fails to earmark the vacancies due > to be reserved as per the 100 point roster. > > This is a big violation since in the absence of seats being earmarked, > disabled candidates and general candidates would be interviewed for the > same cluster of seats. The situation is therefore ripe for biased > administrators to deny reservation by declaring disabled candidate > unsuitable. Very recently the Hansraj College utilized this very loophole > to deny appointment to disabled candidates in the departments of history > and Sanskrit even when the disabled candidates in question had high first > division marks. > > I believe, therefore, that the positive evaluation of the university > initiative by our esteemed colleague is misplaced. He is equally misplaced > in understanding that the current advertisement is for centralization of > college appointment for disabled candidates. This is owing to a > misunderstanding of the advertisement. > > Those who have read the advertisement may notice that it contains three > paragraphs. The first paragraph deals with vacancies that exist in > different university departments. These vacancies were advertised way back > on 27-06-2006. This paragraph also mentions that the last date for > application to these vacancies is 25-05-2007 for disabled candidates. The > second paragraph mentions that those candidates who have already applied > for these posts before, need not apply again. > > Thus the first two paragraphs are concerned solely with appointment to > university departments. Only the third paragraph is concerned with the > college appointments. Here the university suggests that disabled > candidates may get themselves registered with the deputy registrar so that > their details may be provided to the colleges as per requirement. Hence, > this is more in the nature of making a data bank and has little to do with > restructuring appointment process. > > In sum we believe that the initiative by DU is highly retrograde in > nature. It violates the 100 point roster that is the strongest security > for ensuring reservation for the persons with disability. Therefore I > appeal that people should not be hoodwinked by such chicanery rather they > should be more vigilant to undo any attempt of the DU which violates the 3 > % reservation. Moreover, we should also advocate the need to have the > persons with disability as Liasion officers to have a vigil over the > implementation of 100 point roster. > > Note: "My statement made above do not intend or attempt to stop any one > for applying for the said posts. I would rather like to appeal all of you > to pour in with your applications so that DU authorities can not state in > the media that there is a dearth of disabled candidates. > > Thanks a lot for bearing with me for so long. > > With love and care. > > Nikhil Jain > To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, > please visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > ____________________________________________________________________________________Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ To unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
