Editor,
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the recent clarification provided by the registrar of Rajiv Gandhi University (RGU) in response to the letter titled ‘Call for transparency in faculty recruitment at RGU’, published on 28 September.
While the clarification enumerates steps taken by the university to ensure transparency in the recruitment process, it fails to adequately address the core concerns raised in the original letter. Here are my points of concern:
- Mission mode recruitment initiative: The reference to directives from the union education ministry and the recruitment process being conducted under the mission mode Initiative lacks context. The university’s statement merely cites procedural compliance without addressing the specific concerns raised in the letter, particularly with respect to fairness and impartiality in the recruitment process.
- Screening and grievance process: While the university outlines the existence of a screening committee and grievance mechanism, the clarification does not explain whether these processes are functioning as intended. Numerous candidates have expressed frustration with delayed responses to grievances and lack of adequate communication from the university. A list of eligible candidates is published, but transparency is not just about procedure; it is about being open to scrutiny, which the clarification avoids.
- Anonymous concerns: The clarification dismisses the letter as coming from an anonymous source, questioning its legitimacy. This is a distraction from the actual issue. Anonymous sources are sometimes necessary when individuals feel that raising their voices could lead to repercussions. It is more important to focus on the validity of the concerns raised, rather than dismiss them on the basis of anonymity.
- Selection process transparency: The university claims that the selection process was transparent, but it is vague on details such as how interview panels are formed, how decisions are made, and whether there is external oversight to ensure impartiality. These are crucial components of transparency that have been glossed over in the response.
- Non-publication of names and selected candidates: In my earlier communication, I had specifically asked why the names of eligible candidates for the positions of assistant professor, associate professor and professor were not published, despite the university’s claims of transparency.
Furthermore, after the recruitment process is completed, the university does not publish the names of selected candidates department-wise on its website, nor does it release any wait list, if applicable. This omission raises serious concerns about the transparency and accountability of the process. The clarification fails to address this critical issue, which was a key point in my original letter.
In conclusion, while the university’s clarification outlines a procedural framework, it fails to address the genuine concerns of fairness, openness, and accountability in the faculty recruitment process. I urge the university to consider a more in-depth and open explanation of its recruitment practices, and to engage more meaningfully with the public on this important issue.
A concerned Arunachalee citizen