Silence over APU faculty recruitment allegations

Editor,

With the arrival of winter, have the controversial allegations surrounding Arunachal Pradesh University (APU), Pasighat, been swept away by the autumn wind? Almost a month has passed since accusations of violations of UGC Guidelines 2018 surfaced, yet no clarifications have been issued by the APU administration, the governor (who is the chancellor), the education minister or the education commissioner.

Their silence only fuels public suspicion and compels many to wonder whether they had any role in the questionable recruitment process.

The following points highlight the major issues and controversies in the APU’s recruitment of teaching faculty across various posts (assistant professor, associate professor, and professor):

1. Inconvenient and unprofessional application process

The applicants were asked to:

1. Download the application form from the university website.
2. Print and fill it by hand.
3. Self-attest all documents from Class 10 onwards, including degree certificates, NET/JRF/SLET/SET, caste certificates, publications, projects, and presentations.
4. Scan all documents and the filled form.
5. Merge them into a single PDF with the payment slip.
6. Email the single file to the university.

In an age of digital transformation, this outdated process is both cumbersome and unprofessional. It also created unnecessary work for the administration while increasing the risk of human error during scrutiny.

The UGC Guidelines 2018 [6.0 (I, II), 6.1 (a), Appendix II, Tables 2 & 3A] specify that academic and research scores be systematically calculated before shortlisting candidates. The government’s Samarth e-Gov portal, used by both central and state universities, provides an automated system for such recruitment. Yet, the APU ignored this standard process. Why would the university avoid a transparent, government-mandated digital system? Was it to manipulate the shortlisting process? By doing so, the APU not only disregarded the Digital India initiative but also contradicted the vision of Viksit Bharat 2047, which emphasises transparency and technological integration.

2. Violation of UGC Guideline 2018 (Appendix II, Tables 2 & 3A)

These tables outline the method for calculating the academic/research score (maximum 100 marks) and the criteria for shortlisting candidates for interviews. Yet, there is no indication that such scoring was applied. Almost all candidates were made eligible for interviews, suggesting that academic and research credentials were disregarded. If the academic scores had been properly calculated, it would have been reflected in the shortlist, and those with limited or no research experience would not have been selected.

3. Uncertainty over Appendix II, Table 3A (D)

This clause states that the academic score calculated in Table 3A (A) shall be valid for appointments in state universities. This means candidates with higher academic and research achievements should score better during shortlisting. However, it appears that the entire process may have relied only on the interview component (worth 50 marks), raising doubts about the fairness of the assessment.

4. Violation of UGC Guidelines 2018, Clauses 5.1 (vi) and 6.0 (III)

These clauses emphasise the inclusion of SC/ST/OBC/minority/women/differently-abled representatives in selection committees whenever candidates from these categories are applicants. Reports suggest that this provision was ignored, particularly with regard to women’s representation. Moreover, interviews reportedly continued until 8:30-9 pm, which posed safety concerns for women candidates, given the university’s isolated location and lack of evening transport.

5. Contradiction with NEP 2020

While the chief minister once hailed the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 as a landmark reform, the state’s own university appears to contradict its vision. The APU, established after NEP 2020 came into effect and having begun its first academic session in August 2023, seems to have ignored the policy’s emphasis on research, innovation, and multidisciplinary education.

The governor, as the chancellor, had recently described research and innovation as the soul of higher education and stressed the need for transparency, integrity, and professionalism. Is he aware of the current allegations against APU? If so, why the silence? As chancellor, he holds responsibility to clarify or assure the public that corrective measures are being taken.

6. Undermining NAAC Assessment (Criterion 2 & 3)

For state universities, National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) evaluation is a prerequisite to qualify for UGC grants, financial assistance, and academic autonomy under Section 2(f) & 12 (B) of the UGC Act, 1956.

Under Criterion 2 (teaching-learning and evaluation), the proportion of PhD-qualified faculty is a key measure of teaching quality. Under Criterion 3 (research, innovation, and extension), PhD-holding faculty play a direct role in building a research ecosystem and increasing publication output.

By appointing candidates without PhDs, research experience, or ongoing doctoral enrolment, the APU risks weakening its academic foundation and falling behind in NAAC accreditation. Moreover, if newly recruited faculty members are themselves pursuing PhDs, who will mentor postgraduate students? Under NEP 2020, postgraduate courses must include a research dissertation component – especially for students from three-year undergraduate programmes.

7. Silence and accountability

Multiple RTIs have been filed seeking transparency, but the authorities remain silent. For a university barely three years old, this is not the first controversy. Recruitment in 2023 was also questioned for alleged bias and favouritism in both faculty and non-teaching posts (2024).

Such recurring allegations raise serious concerns about institutional credibility. Where is the state university headed? The silence of the administration, the chancellor, and the government creates further uncertainty and erodes public trust. Despite repeated media coverage, no official clarification or assurance has been made so far.

The people of Arunachal Pradesh must recognise the gravity of these allegations. The integrity of the state’s only public university – and the future of its higher education – hangs in the balance. One hopes the issues raised here will compel the authorities concerned to act transparently and restore confidence in the university’s functioning.

Concerned academician