Reclaim the voice of teachers in Statutory Bodies!

Save Teachers, Save Education

Vote DTF, Elect Mithuraaj Dhusiya to the EC

The last meeting of the Academic Council was held on 27.12.2024. Some of the notes submitted on agenda items before it reproduced below along with summaries of some notes placed during Zero Hour of the meeting. These notes reflect many of the concerns of teachers about teaching-learning, working conditions and service conditions.

The DTF is of the view that without serious and sincere critical engagements with policy decisions taken in the statutory bodies such as the AC and the EC, teacher representation loses its meaning. Elected Teacher representation is a provision we fought for precisely for that role. Grievous future awaits us if elected representatives reduce themselves to administration’s subordinates. We are passing through critical times requiring reversal of the current policy directions. Elections do provide an occasion to communicate teachers’ views. Elect DTF candidates to AC & EC

Fourth year of the UGCF 2022: Continuing with our mistakes? (Agenda Item 5-3)

While the proposal is silent on the learning outcomes for a student, it lists outcomes as are demanded in case of paid projects. The outcomes for the three tracks are listed without any study of apriors that may be required to achieve them. Time for library work and self-study available to a student in the UGCF structure, student-teacher ratio, current teaching and administrative workload of teachers and infrastructure requirements are amongst important inputs which will govern learning outcomes.

The outcomes expected cannot be achieved because apart from dissertation writing/academic project/entrepreneurship, a student will be overburdened every semester with study of four papers, each of 4 credits.
With the erosion of the focus on major discipline (as opposed to what we had in all earlier academic structures) and with fragmentation of student’s attention by burdening them with 7 papers in each semester, the training of students has been jeopardized in the UGCF 2022. To expect these outcomes is unrealistic.
Under UGCF, teachers have been overburdened by large group teaching. If guiding these UG projects will be over and above their direct teaching hours, it is difficult to achieve these outcomes.
If the University is not stipulating any minimum CGPA required for the entry into the fourth year or opting amongst these tracks, then these outcomes are not possible.
Infrastructure for research has not been developed by the University. Reading rooms and research labs for students and individual rooms for teachers are must to make any serious attempt at this.
We fear that en-masse academic projects or research will lead to borrowed and plagiarized material.
Through its insistence on Scopus publications, the University might be pushing the system towards meaningless publications and mal practices with students paying for publications or claiming publications without working towards it.

Some suggestions for consideration are as follows:

In the 4th year, the number of Core papers should be increased to three, with a choice between DSE/GE so that student can earn a minor: 3 Core + 1DSE/GE. Only then DU students will be able to compete with others with their 1-year MA. It does not make sense to have an option of 2 GEs per semester. Our experience is that students choose lukewarm courses to cope with the load.
In the 4th year, the reality will remain that many students will be forced to do coaching for PG entrance exams. They will prefer GEs over DSEs. This will decrease value of their degree.
We should have an option of a research oriented DSE (4 credits) along with a complimentary discipline Specific SEC (2 credits) in lieu of Research/Academic Project. This will help institutions to carry forward UG research without over burdening the system, teachers and students. Teachers will be able to make an attempt at doing good work with interested students.
The credit distribution of the 4th year papers should be changed so that students have fewer papers. This will help students to find time for self-study and research. We propose:
Two core papers of 6 credits; 1 DSE/GE of 4 credits; (1 DSE +1 SEC)/ Research/Academic Project of 6 credits

Annexure to agenda item 5-3 needs to be reviewed to make the fourth year more meaningful and realistic with our focus on inputs and learning outcomes.

PGCF 2024: Are we compounding our mistakes? (Agenda Item 5-2)

The exercise of drafting structure and coursework of the two-year PG (PGCF 2024) should be undertaken after studying issues which have worried teachers since the implementation of the UGCF 2022.

While the University is ready to provide all possible “choices” to students; like a self-goal, it is not ready to grant academic freedom to its departments and teachers which is necessary in drawing a meaningful structure and coursework. “One shoe fits all” slogan and obstinacy cannot help us to achieve academic rigour and excellence.

Instead of having a fixed structure for all PG courses, Faculties and departments should be given academic freedom to draft their structures with a prescribed range of total credits per semester/in the degree programme.

The distribution of credits amongst DSCs and DSEs should be the prerogative of the Department. The Academic Council may provide a guideline.

In the UGCF 2022, while all Honours degree programmes stand diluted because of the decrease in the credits per paper (of the DSCs. DSEs and GEs); science programmes have taken a special beating. While the lab components in courses with the distribution 3L+1P have been rendered meaningless, theory component in papers with distribution 2L +2P remains totally sacrificed. By changing font-size or by skipping writing topics explicitly in the syllabi, dilution in the UGCF 2022 cannot be masked. We ask if 2-hour labs or 2-hour theory papers will make sense in the post graduate degree programmes? Can we not have Core papers of six credits?

For a programme of a duration of two years, it does not make sense to have three possible tracks for the second year. Do we have infrastructure to cater to “choices” that students will make? Is it possible to design coursework which provides equally to all three tracks?

The outcomes listed are unrealistic and are not based on any study of current outputs of dissertations or similar studies which students have done in the past years.

Outcomes are listed without any study of apriors required to achieve them. Time available to students for self-study and library work, student-teacher ratio, current teaching and administrative workload of teachers and infrastructure requirements are amongst important inputs which will govern the outcome.

We see that administration’s unholy love for Scopus publications continues. Through its insistence on Scopus publications, the University might be pushing the system towards meaningless publications and mal practices with students paying for publications or claiming publications without working towards it.

The proposal needs to be reviewed.

The outcomes expected cannot be achieved because apart from dissertation writing/academic project/entrepreneurship, a student will be overburdened every semester with study of four papers, each of 4 credits.
With the erosion of the focus on major discipline (as opposed to what we had in all earlier academic structures) and with fragmentation of student’s attention by burdening them with 7 papers in each semester, the training of students has been jeopardized in the UGCF 2022. To expect these outcomes is unrealistic.
Under UGCF, teachers have been overburdened by large group teaching. If guiding these UG projects will be over and above their direct teaching hours, it is difficult to achieve these outcomes.
If the University is not stipulating any minimum CGPA required for the entry into the fourth year or opting amongst these tracks, then these outcomes are not possible.
Infrastructure for research has not been developed by the University. Reading rooms and research labs for students and individual rooms for teachers are must to make any serious attempt at this.
We fear that en-masse academic projects or research will lead to borrowed and plagiarized material.
Through its insistence on Scopus publications, the University might be pushing the system towards meaningless publications and mal practices with students paying for publications or claiming publications without working towards it.

Some suggestions for consideration are as follows:

In the 4th year, the number of Core papers should be increased to three, with a choice between DSE/GE so that student can earn a minor: 3 Core + 1DSE/GE. Only then DU students will be able to compete with others with their 1-year MA. It does not make sense to have an option of 2 GEs per semester. Our experience is that students choose lukewarm courses to cope with the load.

In the 4th year, the reality will remain that many students will be forced to do coaching for PG entrance exams. They will prefer GEs over DSEs. This will decrease value of their degree.

We should have an option of a research oriented DSE (4 credits) along with a complimentary discipline Specific SEC (2 credits) in lieu of Research/Academic Project. This will help institutions to carry forward UG research without over burdening the system, teachers and students. Teachers will be able to make an attempt at doing good work with interested students.
The credit distribution of the 4th year papers should be changed so that students have fewer papers. This will help students to find time for self-study and research. We propose:

Two core papers of 6 credits; 1 DSE/GE of 4 credits; (1 DSE +1 SEC)/ Research/Academic Project of 6 credits

Annexure to agenda item 5-3 needs to be reviewed to make the fourth year more meaningful and realistic with our focus on inputs and learning outcomes.

PGCF 2024: Are we compounding our mistakes? (Agenda Item 5-2)

The exercise of drafting structure and coursework of the two-year PG (PGCF 2024) should be undertaken after studying issues which have worried teachers since the implementation of the UGCF 2022.

The distribution of credits amongst DSCs and DSEs should be the prerogative of the Department. The Academic Council may provide a guideline.

The outcomes listed are unrealistic and are not based on any study of current outputs of dissertations or similar studies which students have done in the past years.

The proposal needs to be reviewed.

Concerns over VACs (Agenda Item 4-3)

Value addition courses, while intended to enrich students’ learning experiences, often lack the academic rigor and practical relevance necessary to justify their inclusion in educational curricula.

Courses such as Vikshit Bharat exemplify this concern, as they neither enhance meaningful value nor provide substantial academic content. Instead, they impose additional burdens on students without offering clear benefits.

Similarly, the four proposed courses based on the Bhagavad Gita—Gita for Holistic Life, Gita for Leadership Excellence, Gita for a Sustainable Universe, and Gita for Navigating Life Challenges— raise significant concerns. In their formulation, these courses suffer from overlapping content and a lack of critical analysis. By relying exclusively on a single source—the Gita—they fail to acknowledge the diversity of value systems and the richness of other value-generating experiences, such as everyday life lessons, cultural practices, and community living. This narrow focus risks promoting orthodoxy rather than fostering a pluralistic and inclusive perspective.

Furthermore, while the Gita is undoubtedly a valuable philosophical and ethical text, its application in contemporary contexts must be critically assessed rather than upheld as an unquestionable source of guidance. Academic institutions have a responsibility to promote diverse viewpoints and critical thinking. Overemphasizing one source of values undermines this objective and may alienate students who draw inspiration from other cultural or philosophical traditions.

Thus, we, the undersigned members, register our dissent against these courses, urging the institution to reconsider its design and adopt a more inclusive, critical, and academically rigorous approach to value education.

Note regarding ‘Twinning Arrangement’ with reputed foreign Universities (Agenda Item 5-1)

We wish to highlight the following regarding the proposal:

Twinning programmes along with the ABC regulations, which were adopted earlier, are ways of devaluing coursework and courses offered in the degree programmes at University of
In the name of “choice”, through Twinning Programmes students are being lured into buying credits from foreign campuses. Twinning programs will often be more expensive than traditional degrees due to additional fees and living costs associated with studying abroad. MoUs will not only bring these options to a very few students, but also only to a certain class of students. To those who can afford them, Twinning programmes will provide a way to augment the DU degree with the brand name of a foreign university. Like self-financing courses, Twinning Programmes will lead to further privatisation.
Clause 19a stipulates that “One or two outstanding meritorious students belonging to economically weaker background shall be supported by the University for undergoing twinning arrangement in a FHEI, subject to availability of funds.” The clause is ambiguous as it does not talk in terms of percentage of students who will be provided Also, the proposal does not promise scholarship as such. The low number and the caveat about availability of funds make it essentially meaningless.
The Twinning Programme erodes the idea of equity, accessibility and affordability. It will become a way of creating degrees which will be more marketable than regular DU degree, thus further marginalising students coming from disadvantageous socio-economic backgrounds.
By allowing students to go for Twinning Programmes for a semester in any of Semester III/V/VII and without requiring students to complete equivalent/corresponding courses or appear for these papers in due course, the University is treating its own Core Papers as The University seems to be arguing that there is more value in studying abroad for a semester than to have continuity of coursework.
The proposal is silent about issues which may arise in Twinning Programmes. It may be difficult to ensure a smooth flow of credits and align the course content between institutions, potentially causing gaps in knowledge or unnecessary repetition.

We do not see any advantage in this proposal at the undergraduate level. Twinning Programmes may become academically more important at the level of post-graduation/research where students may enrich their course of study by augmenting it with skills/resources that are not available in the University.

SPECIAL MENTION IN THE ZERO HOUR

Deepening crisis in the 12 Delhi Government Funded Colleges

Today, four months after the Joint AC-EC meeting on the issue, we wish to ask the Vice Chancellor and his team about steps taken towards resolving the issue amicably and/or efforts towards securing 100% UGC funding.

Except for one elected member from the Court to the EC, all in the Joint meeting had accepted that the Central Government and the UGC should be approached. While the Delhi Government must be made to fulfil its financial obligations, UGC funding of colleges functioning under a Central University would provide a lasting solution.

NFS: Intent and Processes under question

The recent results of the Department of Hindi have shocked everyone. NFS in an old, well-established Department with a huge base raise questions over both the intent of the University and the process of screening.

Our letters to the Vice Chancellor on (i) “Not Found Suitable” (NFS) cases in teaching posts of Reserved Categories in Delhi University (dated 14.8.2024) and (ii) Screening and promotion criteria violating the UGC Regulations 2018 (dated 10.7.2024), show how these criteria are responsible for increased numbers of NFS.

The UGC Regulations allow publications in peer reviewed journals towards eligibility in promotions and appointment of teachers in the department. The University’s insistence that only publications in Scopus indexed journals or the UGC CARE list would count has caused teachers already working in Departments to be declared ineligible. Their research work has been nullified.

This reinforces the existing conditions of exclusion of teachers and research scholars from reserved categories. Weeding out candidates at the screening stage disguises such exclusion and subverts the constitutional imperative of social justice.

Uncritical and obsessive insistence on Scopus indexed publication as the definitive metric of the academic quality for recruitment, promotion, grants, and PhD is unwarranted. Not enough journals relevant to several disciplines are listed in the index.

We demand that the Ordinances for promotions, the screening criteria as well as the PhD Ordinance be aligned to the UGC Regulations.

Counting of Past Services

We appeal to the Vice Chancellor to impress upon the UGC to count the entire past services of teachers towards promotions and retirement benefits.

The UGC Regulation 2018 identifies ad-hoc services of any duration/length to be counted towards past services. However, it limits counting of past services towards the first promotion (from 10 AL to 11 AL) only. Many teachers have become permanent after serving for several years. Further, full pension under UPS requires completion of 25 years of service.

Similarly, the entire past service of Temporary teachers be treated as continuous and be counted towards all benefits. They have served their colleges for over a decade against posts which were not filled on time.

We appeal to the Academic Council to constitute a Standing Committee which can draft a report for the consideration of the UGC.

Restoration of WUS facilities for all teaching and non-teaching employees

We demand the restoration of WUS facilities for all teaching and non-teaching employees of Delhi University who wish to do so.

Prevailing Chaos in DU: Legitimate reasons to withdraw from CUET

Staggered academic calendars have caused a lot of chaos in the University. Teachers are expected to invigilate, evaluate and teach at the same time. Lack of infrastructure has forced periodic recourse to online teaching. While the DU Academic Calendar notifies 2.12.2025 as the beginning of Sem IV and VI, exams for Sem III and V have been scheduled till 10.1.2025.

Further, while the delays in admissions have caused seats in several courses to remain vacant, DU forcing 20% excess admission has worsened student-teacher ratio in many courses in campus colleges.

In the Law Faculty, arbitrary orders of “remedial classes” and postponement of exams have caused hardship to teachers and regular students.

There seems to be a systemic collapse. We need to explore how best to ensure timely admissions and synchronise Academic Calendars.

Some of the other issues raised in the Zero Hour:

The SOP dated 3.6.2024 and DU Notification of 20.7.2023 add another layer “shortlisting’ of candidates for recruitment by a committee having the same composition as the Selection Committee. Such over-centralisation is not required by the UGC Regulations and was not discussed in the Academic Council. We seek its review.
Ad-hoc appointments against short term vacancies arising from leave or retirements should be resumed. Full time vacancies should be filled through appointments of full-time teachers as they perform many other duties besides teaching. The UGC Regulations 2018 acknowledges ad-hoc services.
There is an inordinate delay in promotions of teachers in certain colleges. These delays have caused harassment of teachers.
Teachers who have been promoted as Associate Professors are not eligible for either Study Leave or Sabbatical till such time as they complete 7 years. Consequently, many teachers have to decline prestigious fellowships offered by Institutions in India or abroad. Solutions must be found to avoid such serious personal and institutional academic set-back.
DU Letter dated 18.5.2023 in reference to the EC Resolution 44 and 45, dated 8.12.2023, has notified written tests for Librarians and teachers of Physical Education in violation of UGC Regulations.
Faculty of CEMDE (Bio-diversity Parks) are still awaiting implementation of the 7 CPC. We request resolution of the matter without further delay.
Instructors in colleges still await promotion schemes and their correct placement in Grade Pays. This issue needs urgent redressal.
Retirement age of teachers of Physical Education. Delhi University is violating its own EC Resolutions and Ordinances in reducing the retirement age of Associate Professors in Physical Education from 65 to 62 years. It sets back the progress made in this important field by at least thirty years.
Many colleges are not following the UGC Regulations on direct teaching hours. Colleagues promoted to Associate Professor under CAS 2018 are being forced to teach for 16 hours. The answer to the crisis caused by EWS Expansion without additional teachers or new courses cannot overburden the existing faculty.
The University has been illegally making recoveries from teachers in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment of 2014 that prohibits recovery from retired teachers or those on the verge of retirement or those in whose case over payment was made by the administration more than five years before it was discovered and notified to teacher.
Newly appointed teachers in many Departments are still awaiting allotment of rooms and labs while several rooms and labs are still occupied by retired teachers or kept locked by them. Crisis is deep in Departments like Chemistry where research is predominately experimental and requires lab spaces.
Out of turn house allotment on DU Campus is unfortunate. Many houses, which are vacant, are not shown on the website and are quietly allotted. Seniority needs to be followed strictly in house allotment to maintain transparency.
Mistreatment of Ms. Sharmishta Atreja, a 100 percent visually impaired faculty member of the Department of Philosophy, is extremely unfortunate and unacceptable. The harassment meted out to Ms. Atreja is symptomatic of the larger malaise plaguing the University of Delhi. The University has repeatedly failed to honour the rights and dignity of life of its PwBD category students and employees.
Computer Science courses and other self-financing courses in colleges should be regularised. While we appreciate that the process has been initiated by the University, relief is yet to come to all units. Similarly, B.Tech. and Integrated Programmes in LLB should become regular courses. Diversion of teaching posts from other Departments towards self-financing courses will worsen student-teacher ratio for other courses. The University should seek posts and funding for these.