Editor,
The recent discussion on qualification criteria for teaching positions in education necessitates a careful, evidence-based interpretation of existing regulations.
While the adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2018 (Appendix-II, Table 3B) is commendable, it must be clearly stated that the regulation does not prescribe that undergraduate and postgraduate degrees must be in the same subject. Table 3B primarily emphasises postgraduate qualification in the relevant subject, along with NET/PhD requirements. Therefore, introducing a ‘same UG-PG subject’ condition goes beyond the scope of the prescribed norms.
Further, as per UGC-NET provisions, education is treated as a single unified subject (Subject Code: 09). Candidates possessing MA (education) as well as MEd are eligible to appear for the same examination, with identical syllabus and evaluation criteria. This reflects institutional recognition of both qualifications within the same academic domain.
In addition, the National Testing Agency (NTA) classifies MEd as a valid postgraduate degree (Code: 07), placing it at par with other master’s degrees. This directly establishes its academic legitimacy, alongside its professional orientation.
In academia, diversity in undergraduate and postgraduate subjects is a widely accepted and established practice. Across disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and mass communication, students frequently transition between subjects at different levels. Moreover, many professors across universities in India do not have identical undergraduate and postgraduate specialisations. This reality itself demonstrates that rigid insistence on the same UG and PG subject is neither a universal norm nor a necessary academic requirement.
In such contexts, it is the postgraduate specialisation that holds primary importance, as it reflects subject expertise, depth of knowledge, and readiness for higher-level teaching. The undergraduate degree serves as a foundational stage and does not limit further academic progression.
In the discipline of education, many candidates possess a comprehensive academic and professional trajectory, including undergraduate degrees in social sciences or sciences, BEd training, MA (education), MEd, and even PhD in education. Such profiles combine interdisciplinary knowledge with pedagogical expertise, which is essential for teaching programmes like BA (education).
It has also been argued that since MEd is a professional degree, it should be treated differently from MA (education), and on that basis, MEd holders may be considered less suitable for certain teaching roles. However, such an interpretation is not supported by existing policy frameworks. The professional nature of MEd does not diminish its academic value; rather, it enhances it by integrating theory, research, and pedagogical practice. In contemporary higher education, the combination of academic knowledge and professional training is increasingly seen as essential.
Importantly, under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, higher education is envisioned as multidisciplinary, flexible, and practice-oriented. In line with this vision, many BA (education) programmes now include components such as teaching skills, micro-teaching, and internships – features traditionally associated with teacher education. This indicates a clear shift towards integration rather than rigid separation between academic and professional domains.
Furthermore, as per prevailing practices and NCTE guidelines, candidates with MA (education) along with BEd are teaching in BEd colleges, particularly for foundation courses. At the same time, MEd represents advanced professional specialisation in teacher education. Therefore, rather than creating rigid distinctions, it is more appropriate to recognise the complementary roles of both qualifications and ensure role clarity based on relevance and expertise.
In conclusion, recruitment policies must:
l Adhere strictly to UGC Regulations, 2018
l Align with the vision of NEP 2020;
l Recognise interdisciplinary academic progression; and
l Ensure fairness, consistency, and inclusivity.
Interpretations that go beyond established regulations risk excluding competent candidates and undermining the broader objectives of higher education reform. A rational, evidence-based, and forward-looking approach is essential for maintaining the integrity and quality of the education system.
Aspiring assistant professors (education)