How UGC, AICTE, NIRF, NAAC, and NBA Need to Interpret Faculty Qualifications Post Supreme Court Clarifications

The recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the precedence of state regulations over central guidelines issued by UGC and AICTE has stirred significant discussion in the academic community. This case has profound implications for faculty qualifications, eligibility criteria, and institutional compliance with accreditation requirements, especially in the context of NBA, NAAC, AICTE, UGC, and NIRF evaluations.

The Case : Who Are the Parties Involved?

The Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the case of P.J. Dharmaraj v. Church of South India & Ors. on December 6, 2024.

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the retirement age, eligibility criteria, and faculty-related norms in state universities.

• Appellant: A former Director of a technical institution, challenging his retirement based on central guidelines (AICTE/UGC rules) that set the superannuation age at 65 years.

• Respondents: The institution’s governing body and the respective state government, which maintained a lower retirement age of 60 years, as per state laws.

The Supreme Court ruled that state regulations take precedence over central guidelines unless explicitly adopted by the state government.

This has raised critical questions regarding faculty roles, SFR compliance, and how regulatory bodies like NBA, NAAC, UGC, and AICTE evaluate institutional standards.

Key Verdict Points from the Supreme Court Ruling

1. State Regulations Supersede Central Guidelines: The Supreme Court clarified that state government regulations take precedence over UGC and AICTE guidelines, except in central-funded institutions or deemed-to-be universities.

2. Adoption of Central Guidelines by States: Central guidelines (e.g., AICTE’s 65-year retirement age) are not binding on state-governed institutions unless the respective state government formally adopts them.

3. Eligibility of Faculty Positions: Eligibility and service conditions for faculty positions, including appointments and retirement age, must align with state-specific rules for institutions under state jurisdiction.

4. Demarcation Between Administrative and Teaching Roles: Administrative roles (e.g., Directors, Principals) are distinct from teaching roles and cannot be considered as teaching staff unless they have a documented teaching workload.

5. Counting Administrative Heads in Faculty Roles: Directors or Principals can only be counted in Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) or retention metrics if: They have assigned classroom teaching responsibilities. Documentary proof (such as classroom time tables and subject mappings) is provided.

Read more below on the Implication and Evaluation for NIRF, NBA, NAAC and AICTE Evaluations and Eligibility.

Buy My Best Selling Book on OBE

Implications for Accreditation and Evaluation

This ruling has significant implications for how evaluators from NBA, NAAC, UGC, and AICTE interpret faculty-related metrics, especially in light of the confusion often observed during assessments. Even among assessors, there is ambiguity about eligibility, teaching workloads, and administrative roles.

Here are the key takeaways:

1. Eligibility of Faculty Positions

• State Rules Prevail: Faculty eligibility, including appointment criteria and retirement age, will be governed by state-specific regulations unless the state explicitly adopts UGC or AICTE guidelines. Evaluators must cross-check whether state rules align with central guidelines during assessments.

• Implications: Institutions under state control may have faculty with qualifications or service conditions differing from central standards, which should be acknowledged during evaluation.

2. Promotion of Faculty to Higher Levels

• Promotions Aligned to State Regulations: Faculty promotions to higher grades (e.g., Associate Professor to Professor) will follow state rules regarding eligibility criteria, pay scales, and experience requirements.

• Impact on Accreditation: This affects NBA and NAAC assessments, as evaluators must assess promotions based on state-adopted frameworks, not just AICTE/UGC norms.

3. Counting Directors or Principals in SFR

• Eligibility for SFR Inclusion: Directors or Principals can only be counted in the SFR if they have a verifiable classroom teaching workload.

• Proof Required: Institutions must provide: Classroom Time Table: Demonstrating the subjects taught by Directors or Principals. Subject-Faculty Mapping: Clear records linking administrative staff to teaching duties. Academic Council Approvals: Official resolutions authorizing administrative heads to undertake teaching responsibilities.

• Implications: Without these proofs, evaluators must exclude Directors and Principals from SFR calculations.

4. Classroom and Academic Records Are Essential

• Institutions must maintain: Proper documentation of teaching workloads for all faculty, including administrative heads. Approvals from the Academic Council for Directors/Principals teaching in classrooms.

• Impact on Accreditation: Missing documentation could lead to a deduction in scores for criteria related to faculty adequacy and qualifications.

5. Clear Demarcation of Administrative and Teaching Roles

• The Supreme Court clarified that: Administrative roles (e.g., Directors, Registrars, Principals) primarily involve non-teaching duties. These individuals cannot be considered as faculty unless they have approved teaching assignments.

• Implications for Accreditation: NBA and NAAC evaluators need to validate whether institutions are accurately categorizing roles and responsibilities.

6. Salary Requirements as Per State Pay Grades

• Pay Scale Compliance: Salaries for teaching and administrative staff must comply with the state government’s notification, whether based on the 6th or 7th Pay Commission.

• Impact on NBA and NAAC Assessments: Compliance with state pay scales is a critical metric for accreditation. Institutions failing to implement state-prescribed pay structures may lose accreditation points.

Final Comment:

The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes a clear precedence for state regulations in determining faculty qualifications, roles, and pay structures in universities and colleges. Institutions, as well as evaluators from NBA, NAAC, UGC, and AICTE, must align their practices and assessments with the following takeaways:

1. State-specific rules override central regulations unless explicitly adopted.

2. Administrative roles must be clearly demarcated from teaching roles.

3. Directors or Principals can only be counted as faculty if they have documented teaching workloads.

4. Compliance with state-mandated salary scales is essential for maintaining accreditation.

For institutions, maintaining accurate records of faculty profiles, workload assignments, and approvals is now more critical than ever.

Evaluators and assessors must adapt to these clarified roles and ensure that accreditation processes reflect the legal and regulatory framework in which institutions operate.

This ruling is a reminder that accurate interpretation and implementation of rules are vital for institutional excellence and compliance with accreditation standards.

Institutions must proactively address these changes to avoid accreditation challenges and maintain their reputations in the competitive academic landscape.

Thanks for diving into this article! If it sparked some ideas or gave you value, why not take the next step?

• Follow me on LinkedIn for updates and insights: Follow on LinkedIn

• Subscribe to my website for more thought-provoking content and resources: www.deepeshdivakaran.com

• Buy my highly acclaimed book on Outcome Based Education, now used by 1000+ Institutes: Buy It Here at Special Author Price

• Follow my NEP 2020 newsletter for exclusive insights into education reform: Subscribe Here

• Want to have a conversation or ask a question? You can call me or WhatsApp me directly at +91 8086015111.

• Prefer email? Drop me a line at mail@deepeshdivakaran.com.

• Download my free NEP 2020 Guides for in-depth insights into education policy: Download Now

Your thoughts and feedback are always appreciated. Let's shape the future of education together!

Stay Inspired, Stay Informed.