To Fill University Posts, Reframe Recruitment, The Crisis of Faculty Shortages and Flawed Selection Processes
With 26% of Teaching Posts Vacant in Centrally Funded Institutions and Up to 40% in State Universities, India’s Higher Education System Faces a Crisis of Its Own Making
Faculty deficit is a major reason for the precarious state of public higher education in the country. According to a report of the parliamentary standing committee on education, released last year, 26 per cent of the sanctioned teaching posts are vacant in centrally funded institutions. The picture is murkier for state public universities, which face a faculty shortage of up to 40 per cent.
These are not abstract statistics. They represent empty classrooms, overburdened existing faculty, compromised quality of instruction, and ultimately, a generation of students denied the education they deserve. When a university operates with one-third of its teaching positions unfilled, the remaining faculty must stretch themselves thin, offering courses they may not be specialised in, supervising more research students than they can adequately guide, and serving on committees that multiply as vacancies grow.
The problem is not new, but it is getting worse. And even when recruitment is conducted, it often gets stalled in courts. The recruitment process itself has become a source of contention, with flawed procedures, arbitrary evaluations, and opaque decision-making leading to litigation that further delays the filling of posts.
The Evolution of UGC Guidelines
The University Grants Commission has tried to lay down guidelines for recruitment, beginning with its 2010 regulations. But they have been inadequate and have changed frequently. This instability creates confusion for both institutions and candidates, and undermines confidence in the fairness of the process.
The performance-based appraisal system was complicated and became impractical when the number of applications went up. The UGC had to replace it in 2018 with another criterion, which has its own limitations. On the one hand, a simplified weightage-based academic score for shortlisting candidates was introduced, and on the other, institutions were left free to decide the number of candidates to be called for an interview.
This hybrid approach attempts to balance objectivity with flexibility, but in practice, it has created new problems. The academic score, while quantifiable, may not capture the full range of a candidate’s qualifications and potential. The interview, while allowing for assessment of personal qualities, remains vulnerable to subjectivity and bias.
The Problem with Interviews
The minimum eligibility criteria often become the sole parameter of selection—it allows the appointment of a candidate with a fresh master’s degree and NET or a PhD holder on the basis of performance in the interview. At its core, an interview is a subjective exercise and often prone to favouritism.
Barring exceptions, it is common for a candidate to be interviewed for less than five minutes behind closed doors. In five minutes, what can really be assessed? A candidate’s ability to think on their feet, perhaps. Their communication skills, maybe. But their deep knowledge of their discipline? Their pedagogical approach? Their research potential? These require more than five minutes of conversation.
The closed-door nature of interviews compounds the problem. When decisions are made behind closed doors, without recorded deliberations or transparent criteria, the scope for arbitrariness expands. Candidates who are rejected have no way of knowing why, no feedback to improve, no basis to challenge the decision except through litigation.
Compelled by judicial and public pressure, some states have reduced the weightage of the interview. But efforts have not been made to frame a transparent selection process. Reducing weightage addresses the symptom but not the cause. What is needed is a fundamental rethinking of how candidates are assessed.
The Haryana Controversy
This is evident in Haryana’s ongoing recruitment controversy. The Haryana Public Service Commission reportedly changed its objective-type test and interview-based criterion at the last minute to a subjective-type subject knowledge test (SKT) with an additional qualifying condition of 35 per cent marks, followed by an interview.
The argument that the UPSC’s civil examinations have a subjective test is not convincing. The civil services exam has a different mandate from that of a test to select assistant professors. An aspirant for the post of an assistant professor has passed subjective exams at the university level. It is wrong to examine her again through subjective testing at a stage where objectivity must be ensured as far as possible.
The UPSC has tried to overcome some of the limitations of a subjective test by clearly outlining the rubrics and diversifying the nature of questions. In contrast, the HPSC’s test comprised 15 essay-type questions to be attempted in three hours. Answering an essay-type question requires critical reflection. Expecting a candidate to write 15 essays in three hours is not an evaluation of subject knowledge or pedagogical skills—it is a writing speed test.
This distinction is crucial. A test that measures writing speed rather than subject knowledge is not fit for purpose. It selects for the wrong qualities and excludes candidates who may be excellent scholars but slower writers.
The Arbitrariness of Evaluation
When the exam’s results were declared in December 2023, it was clear that the evaluation was no less arbitrary. Against 613 advertised posts in English, only 151 candidates had qualified. That is a qualification rate of less than 25 per cent. Such a low qualification rate raises obvious questions: Were the candidates truly that unprepared? Or was the evaluation unreasonably harsh? Or was the test itself flawed?
The candidates who have not been selected have been left with very little recourse to know, let alone challenge, the yardstick applied in evaluation, except for approaching the court. Without access to their evaluated answer scripts, without knowledge of the marking scheme, without understanding why they failed, they are powerless. The only option is litigation, which is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the exam, recognizing that the process was problematic. But a stay is not a solution. It merely halts the process, leaving vacancies unfilled and candidates in limbo.
The Judicialisation of Recruitment
It is not a healthy sign that courts have to adjudicate educational recruitments. The judiciary is already overburdened with cases; it should not have to oversee the minutiae of faculty selection. Moreover, courts are not equipped to make academic judgments. They can determine whether procedures were followed, whether rules were violated, but they cannot assess whether a candidate is truly qualified.
When recruitment processes are so flawed that they routinely end up in court, something is fundamentally wrong with the processes themselves. The solution is not more judicial intervention but better-designed recruitment systems that command confidence and withstand scrutiny.
The Need for Reform
It is high time a robust and transparent procedure was put in place, and pending recruitments were fast-tracked. What would such a procedure look like?
First, it would minimise subjectivity. Interviews would have a place, but they would be structured, recorded, and based on clear criteria. Multiple interviewers would be involved, and their assessments would be aggregated. Candidates would receive feedback.
Second, it would ensure transparency. Selection criteria would be published in advance. Answer scripts would be made available to candidates who request them. The basis for decisions would be documented and accessible.
Third, it would be validated. Tests would be piloted and analysed to ensure they measure what they claim to measure. Cut-off scores would be set based on evidence, not arbitrary percentages.
Fourth, it would be timely. The process from advertisement to appointment would be completed within a defined timeframe. Delays would have consequences.
Fifth, it would be insulated from interference. Selection committees would be composed of qualified academics, not political appointees. Decisions would be based on merit, not connections.
The Stakes
The stakes could not be higher. India’s higher education system is expected to educate millions of young people, to produce research that advances knowledge, to drive innovation and economic growth. None of this is possible without qualified, motivated faculty.
The faculty deficit is not just a number; it is a barrier to the nation’s future. Every vacant post represents opportunities lost—for students who will not be taught, for research that will not be conducted, for knowledge that will not be created.
The recruitment process is the gateway through which all faculty must pass. If that gateway is flawed, if it selects the wrong people or excludes the right ones, the entire system suffers. The current crisis of vacancies and litigation is a symptom of deeper problems in how we select those who will shape the minds of the next generation.
Conclusion: A Call for Action
The parliamentary standing committee’s report should be a wake-up call. Twenty-six per cent vacancies in centrally funded institutions, up to 40 per cent in state universities—these are not acceptable. They represent a failure of policy, of administration, of will.
The UGC must revisit its guidelines, learning from the mistakes of the past. States must reform their recruitment processes, ensuring they are transparent, objective, and fair. Universities must be empowered to fill posts quickly when they fall vacant.
But above all, there must be a recognition that the current system is broken. It is producing vacancies, litigation, and frustration. It is failing candidates, failing institutions, and failing students. It is time for a fundamental rethink.
The future of Indian higher education depends on it.
Q&A: Unpacking the Faculty Recruitment Crisis
Q1: How severe is the faculty shortage in Indian higher education?
A: According to a parliamentary standing committee report released last year, 26 per cent of sanctioned teaching posts are vacant in centrally funded institutions. The situation is even worse in state public universities, which face a faculty shortage of up to 40 per cent. These vacancies mean empty classrooms, overburdened existing faculty, compromised quality of instruction, and ultimately, a generation of students denied quality education.
Q2: What are the problems with the current recruitment process?
A: The recruitment process suffers from multiple flaws. The UGC guidelines have changed frequently, creating confusion. Interviews, which often last less than five minutes behind closed doors, are subjective and prone to favouritism. When states attempt reforms, they often introduce new problems—like the Haryana Public Service Commission’s subject knowledge test that required 15 essays in three hours, effectively measuring writing speed rather than subject knowledge. The result is frequent litigation and stalled recruitments.
Q3: What happened in the Haryana recruitment controversy?
A: The Haryana Public Service Commission changed its selection criteria at the last minute from an objective-type test and interview to a subjective-type subject knowledge test with 15 essay-type questions to be attempted in three hours, plus an interview. Against 613 advertised posts in English, only 151 candidates qualified—a rate below 25 per cent. Candidates had no way to know the evaluation yardstick, leaving litigation as the only recourse. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the exam.
Q4: Why is the comparison with UPSC civil services exam flawed?
A: The argument that UPSC conducts subjective tests does not justify similar tests for faculty selection. The civil services exam has a different mandate and selects for different qualities. Assistant professor aspirants have already passed subjective exams at the university level. At the selection stage, objectivity must be ensured as far as possible. Moreover, UPSC has tried to overcome subjective test limitations by clearly outlining rubrics and diversifying question types—unlike the HPSC’s 15-essay-in-three-hours format.
Q5: What reforms are needed in faculty recruitment?
A: A robust and transparent procedure should: minimise subjectivity through structured, recorded interviews with clear criteria; ensure transparency by publishing selection criteria in advance and making answer scripts available; validate tests to ensure they measure what they claim; complete the process within defined timeframes; and insulate selection from political interference. The goal is to design systems that command confidence, withstand scrutiny, and reduce the need for judicial intervention in educational recruitments.
