Persistent Gaps in Reserved Faculty Positions Highlight Deep Inequalities in India’s Higher Education
Why in News
Despite constitutional mandates and long-standing reservation policies, India’s central universities and premier institutions continue to fall short in filling reserved faculty posts for SCs, STs, and OBCs. Data and expert observations highlight systemic barriers and deep-rooted institutional biases, raising urgent questions about inclusivity and social justice in India’s higher education system.
Introduction
India’s Constitution promises equitable representation for historically marginalized communities through reservations in public institutions. This includes specific quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) — set at 15%, 7.5%, 27%, and 10%, respectively. However, premier institutions such as IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS, as well as central universities, continue to report major gaps in fulfilling reserved faculty positions, especially at the senior level.
Key Issues and Background
-
The Persistent Gap:
According to data presented by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan in April 2021:-
2,389 reserved faculty posts were vacant for SCs
-
1,199 for STs
-
4,251 for OBCs
These vacancies span 45 central universities, despite special drives and recruitment initiatives at places like JNU and Delhi University.
-
-
UGC 2023 Report:
Nearly 30% of reserved faculty seats remain vacant. The gaps are most severe in senior positions like Associate Professors and Professors, indicating structural hurdles in career advancement for marginalized scholars. -
Contrast with Other Sectors:
Public sector jobs (e.g., in railways or banks) often fill Group C and D reserved positions more consistently, whereas academic positions — especially at higher ranks — remain inaccessible to SC/ST/OBC candidates.
Systemic Barriers
-
Institutional Autonomy vs Accountability:
Premier institutions enjoy a high degree of autonomy, which sometimes leads to low accountability in implementing reservation policies. Vice-Chancellors and selection committees — often composed of members from dominant social groups — may de-prioritize or ignore social justice goals. -
UGC Roster System:
The 13-point roster introduced in 2018, replacing the 200-point system, treats an entire institution as a unit. This disproportionately disadvantages small departments where reserved quotas rarely arise, especially for ST candidates. This system was later struck down, but the damage lingers. -
Bias in Selection Criteria:
Selection processes often exclude candidates from SC/ST/OBC backgrounds through vague criteria like “suitability”, which disproportionately affects marginalized applicants. Qualified candidates are often rejected on non-academic grounds or face subtle discrimination. -
Political and Administrative Apathy:
A general lack of urgency from institutional leadership and inconsistent policy enforcement have worsened the problem. Even special recruitment drives have not yielded significant results.
Specific Impacts or Effects
-
Denying Opportunities to Marginalized Communities:
Talented scholars from reserved categories remain excluded from academia, perpetuating cycles of economic and educational disadvantage. -
Undermining Constitutional Mandates:
Failure to fill these posts is a direct violation of Article 15 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard equal opportunity and affirmative action. -
Weakening the Goal of Inclusive Education:
Universities are supposed to be spaces of social transformation. Continued underrepresentation dilutes India’s vision of an inclusive and egalitarian education system.
Challenges and the Way Forward
-
Policy Reform and Oversight:
The University Grants Commission (UGC) must actively audit institutions, track compliance, and publicly report on reservation implementation. -
Roster System Revision:
The 13-point roster system must be permanently replaced with one that aligns with constitutional principles, ensuring reserved seats are fairly distributed across departments. -
Bias-Free Recruitment:
Institutions must standardize evaluation criteria, provide training to selection committees, and sensitize faculty to issues of social justice and inclusion. -
Political Will and Enforcement:
Filling reserved posts should not be a symbolic gesture or a political slogan. It requires proactive outreach, legal enforcement, and a fundamental change in mindset.
Conclusion
The continued shortfall in reserved faculty positions reflects India’s ongoing struggle to turn its commitment to social justice into a functioning reality. Premier institutions must align their recruitment and academic values with the constitutional mandate. As highlighted in the National Education Policy 2020, universities must not only promote excellence but also act as drivers of social change. Ensuring representation is not just a legal obligation — it is a moral and social imperative for India’s democracy.
5 Questions and Answers
1. What is the constitutional basis for reserved faculty positions in India?
Reservations for SCs, STs, OBCs, and EWS are mandated by the Constitution to provide equitable representation and address historical injustices.
2. What is the scale of the faculty vacancy problem?
As of 2021, there were over 7,800 vacant reserved faculty posts across 45 central universities, with many more at senior levels still unfilled.
3. What is the 13-point roster system and why is it controversial?
The 13-point roster treats the institution as a single unit rather than departments, reducing chances for reserved candidates, especially in small departments.
4. What are some systemic biases in recruitment?
Marginalized candidates often face non-transparent selection, rejection based on vague criteria, and lack of representation on interview panels.
5. What needs to be done to fix this?
Reforming roster policies, ensuring transparent and fair recruitment, training selection committees, and strictly enforcing constitutional provisions are crucial steps.
