Editor,
I wish to express my deep dissatisfaction and disappointment over the recently conducted recruitment of faculty members at the Arunachal Pradesh University (APU), Pasighat. Having personally faced two interviews for the post of assistant professor, I feel compelled to share my experience – one that echoes the concerns of many other candidates from various disciplines. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way this institution conducts its recruitment process. Sadly, what we lack with regard to the unsystematic practice is concrete evidence to expose the truth despite being perceivable and known by everyone.
In my own subject domain (education), I personally experienced this during the first phase of interview conducted in November 2023. The bias was so evident that it became the subject of discussion among more than 30 candidates present at the spot. The selected candidate did possess all the requisite qualifications such as a PhD and other academic credentials. However, as individuals living and working within the same academic environment, we naturally know each other’s professional calibre. It was apparent to many of us that the said candidate lacked both communication skills and academic writing ability compared to many of the candidates who faced the interview. Thus, the selection process appeared questionable, as mere possession of a PhD degree cannot justify merit or teaching competence.
What made the situation even more concerning was that the selected candidate is closely associated on a personal level with the current vice-chancellor of the university. When the administrative head who shares such a personal connection with a candidate also sits at the centre of the interview board, it naturally raises serious concerns about impartiality and fairness. After the interview itself, the candidate appeared dissatisfied with his own performance, even expressing frustration at being unable to answer a basic question on the chi-square formula and not getting an opportunity for a demo class, which was limited to selected candidates who did well in the question-answer session, unlike the mandatory demo class in the second phase of the recently concluded interview in September 2025.
Nevertheless, when the results were declared, it came as no surprise that he was chosen. Everyone present had anticipated this outcome, may be due to his personal association with the vice-chancellor and his engagement as a guest faculty member.
In the recently concluded second phase of interviews in September 2025, the pattern seemed to have repeated itself. Two of the board members from the 2023 interview, both from Rajiv Gandhi University, were again part of the selection committee, along with an external member reportedly from Dibrugarh University. At such a high level, we at least expect the composition of the interview board to change to ensure fairness and transparency.
This time as well, the candidate selected under the ST category happens to be a serving guest faculty member of the same university. While she does meet the required qualifications, her appointment along with the waitlisted candidate, another former guest faculty now serving as a DIET lecturer, further reflects a culture where internal candidates are given disproportionate advantage.
When those already within the system repeatedly secure permanent positions, it undermines the credibility of the entire recruitment process and erodes the confidence of genuine, deserving applicants. Furthermore, inconsistencies in selection criteria across departments have only added to the confusion. In some departments, candidates with PhD degrees were appointed, while in others, fresh postgraduates with NET qualification and PhD ‘in progress’ were selected. Such irregularities make it difficult for candidates to understand the standards or principles guiding the recruitment process.
It is also disheartening to see that some exceptionally talented candidates, who have cleared NET and JRF, published research papers, presented at national and international seminars, and are currently pursuing PhD are deprived of the post despite performing very well in the interview, merely because their doctoral degree is yet to be complete.
This rigid stance not only discourages emerging scholars but also deprives the university of young, competent educators. If candidates whose PhD is under progress weren’t meant to be selected despite having exceptional knowledge, passion, and teaching ability, why were they shortlisted for the interview at first place? A PhD can always be earned later, but genuine competence and dedication to teaching cannot be fabricated. Selecting less capable candidates merely over a degree is dangerous, because every parent entrusts the university with their child’s future with a belief that they will be nurtured by true educators, not by those who hold titles without talent.
Given that faculty members appointed in the year 2023 are still within their probation period, and the appointment process of the newly selected candidates is under process, it is essential that the authorities immediately halt further proceedings and initiate an impartial investigation into the entire process.
It is high time that the government intervened to ensure fairness and transparency in the recruitment process at the APU. A fresh round of interviews conducted under an unbiased and accountable framework is the only way to restore trust and integrity. When a large section of candidates express dissatisfaction, it is a clear indication that something is fundamentally wrong with the university.
A disheartened
candidate