Editor,
I wish to express concern over the recent and past recruitment of assistant professors at the Arunachal Pradesh University (APU). After following the series of reports published in The Arunachal Times between 9 and 24 October, one cannot help but notice a worrying pattern of irregularities and opaque procedures that undermine the very credibility of the institution.
To begin with, it is deeply concerning that guest faculties are recruited first, and only afterwards are regular posts advertised – with many of these guest appointees eventually absorbed into regular positions in subsequent recruitments. This practice defies the very logic of institutional development.
When a new university or department is established, it is standard academic practice to first recruit one or two regular faculty or staff members who lay the foundation for the department, followed by contractual or contingency appointments as per requirements. The reverse approach at the APU – where temporary recruits precede regular faculty – raises serious questions about intent, fairness, and adherence to due process.
Equally disturbing is the non-consideration of API (Academic Performance Indicator) scores during shortlisting, and the failure to maintain the UGC-mandated 1:3 ratio between shortlisted and interviewed candidates. These are not minor procedural lapses – they go to the heart of fairness and meritocracy. Without transparent evaluation metrics, how can one ensure that deserving candidates are even given a fair chance to appear before the selection committee?
Furthermore, the composition and conduct of the interview panel appear inadequate. With only a limited number of members actively engaging in the process, the evaluation seemed neither sufficiently diverse nor comprehensive. A credible academic recruitment process should involve a well-balanced panel with subject experts, senior academics, and external representatives, ensuring that every candidate is assessed fairly through informed and collective deliberation.
There is also the issue of evaluation depth. Candidates were reportedly asked only 5-7 questions and given barely 1-2 minutes for a demo lecture. Is that truly sufficient to assess a candidate’s subject command, teaching aptitude, and research potential? Such superficial assessment risks reducing a serious academic process to a mere formality.
Moreover, relevant experience – both research and teaching – must be given due weightage in the final evaluation. Years of academic or industry experience cannot be overlooked in favour of shallow interviews or preferential selections.
Most importantly, I strongly believe that at least for entry-level posts like assistant professor, the recruitment process must not rely solely on walk-in interviews. A fair and merit-based system would first shortlist candidates based on API and eligibility criteria, followed by a written examination to objectively test subject knowledge. Only candidates who qualify in this written test should then be called for the interview. The final selection should be based on a composite score – considering marks from both the written exam and the interview – to ensure transparency and equal opportunity for all applicants.
In light of these observations, one must ask: Are we building an academic institution on merit and vision, or on convenience and favouritism? The silence of the planning board, executive council, and other stakeholders, as highlighted in your recent reports, only deepens public mistrust.
I sincerely urge the university authorities, the State Education Department, and governing bodies to review the current recruitment policies at the APU and restore fairness, transparency, and accountability in faculty selection. The credibility of our state’s first public university depends on it.
A candidate