Six months after Ranchi’s National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) invited applications for six faculty posts via an advertisement, the vice chancellors of all the 23 national law universities (NLU) in the country were served notices by the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) to explain why they had flouted reservation rules.
The notices from the NCBC, served in December 2019, alleged that while some of the NLUs do not reserve seats for students of backward classes, others follow their own systems of reservations without a clear process or rules.
For Jharkhand’s judiciary, these notices should have acted as an advisory. Instead, months later, on October 13, 2020, the High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition filed by Vineet Boris Ekka on November 14, 2019, which had essentially argued that the NUSRL, Ranchi, while advertising for applicants for six faculty positions, had ignored reservations altogether.
Unconstitutional actions
On November 14, 2019, Vineet Boris Ekka, an advocate at Jharkhand High Court represented by advocate Sadish Ujwal Beck, filed a petition against the state of Jharkhand, NUSRL (Ranchi), the Department of Higher Technical Education and Skill Development, Jharkhand, and the University Grants Commission (UGC), Delhi. The petition was based on an advertisement issued by NUSRL, Ranchi, on June 26, 2019, that had invited applications for six faculty posts at the university. This advertisement had disregarded three important legal specifications, according to Beck. These were:
1) Statute 12(A) of the NUSRL Act, 2010, which mentions that the university in all its advertisements for applicants must follow the state reservation policy.
2) The UGC guidelines.
Also read: Reservation Is About Adequate Representation, Not Poverty Eradication
3) Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which grants every Indian citizen the right to equality in the law and Article 16 of the constitution, which grants every Indian citizen the right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. (The constitution explains the matter of public employment as “any office under the State”. Because NUSRL is established by an Act of the state government, any employment opportunity within the institution qualifies as an “office under the State”.)
The petition was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand before the then acting chief justice, Harish Chandra Mishra, who, by virtue of the NUSRL Act, was also the chancellor of the university.
According to the petition, the advertisement released by NUSRL invited applications for two types of posts: regular and contractual. Six academic positions were required to be filled, divided into three categories: professor (law), associate professor (law) and assistant professor (law). The two posts for associate professor were contractual posts, while the other four were regular posts. No mention was made of reservations for candidates in various sub categories.
The matter was first heard on January 22, 2020, by Justice S.N. Pathak. Ajit Kumar, advocate general for the government of Jharkhand, argued that NUSRL is a “self-governed institution and reservation policy is not applicable in the university and as such reservation has not been granted and the same has not been mentioned in advertisement (sic).”
Beck pointed out that the advertisements had said that the qualifications required for these posts were “as per UGC norms”. The UGC guidelines direct universities to divide applicants for academic positions into sub categories such as UNR (unreserved region), SC (scheduled castes), ST (scheduled tribes), OBC (other backward classes) and EWS (economically weaker sections).
Also read: When It Comes to Dalit and Tribal Rights, the Judiciary in India Just Does Not Get It
The high court ordered: “Considering the fact that the interview has already taken place and results are going to be published, this court is not inclined to interfere for the present and as such, University may publish the result, but any appointment pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement shall be subject to final outcome of this writ petition (sic).”
A very confusing list of six selected candidates was released on the same day. All had been appointed as associate professors (law) even though the advertisement had mentioned two other categories. All six had been appointed to regular posts rather than contractual. Only one of the six candidates was from the ST category. The other five belonged to the general category.
Beck told The Wire that the advertisement issued by NUSRL, Ranchi, showed “an abhorrent disregard of the constitution”.
“Every state entity is expected to mandate its functionaries in consonance with the constitutional philosophy of India. State universities ought to oblige by the letter and spirit of the constitution, thereby adopting the same in recruitment of teaching staff and non-teaching staff (sic),” he said. “Universities need to have inclusivity and tolerance as parameters towards all cultures, which are the basic tenets in the establishment of national law universities (sic).”
When asked if the grievance had been reported to the respective departments, Beck said it had, but there had been no reaction.
‘Thoughtless dismissal’
Ekka’s writ as argued by Beck was less focused on reservations than it was on loopholes in laws and judicial failures to implement the provisions of laws.
Almost one-fourth of Jharkhand’s 3.19 crore population belongs to the ST category. The state is also home to some major PTG (Protected Tribal Groups) and SPTGs (Specially Protected Tribal Groups). Some 91% of the Adivasis in Jharkhand live in rural areas. Due to the region’s rugged geography, there is little connection between the people and the administrative departments of the state. It is thus very easy for the tribal communities to mistrust state entities, including NUSRL. Given this situation, it is necessary for the state to protect basic constitutional rights so that there is no discontent in the minds of the people.
Also read: IIM Ahmedabad Continues to Ignore Reservation in its PhD Programme: Researchers
Jharkhand was formed out of Bihar on November 15, 2000, based on the argument that its tribal majority required no compromises in opportunities meant for locals. Appointments like those made by the NUSRL, Ranchi, not only fail the state’s tribal population, but also disrespect the judiciary and parliament that had granted them a separate state.
The decision-making powers at universities belong to their faculty. It is ironic in this case that professors of law are misinterpreting and moulding constitutional provisions to their own interests. It is interesting to imagine what their students might make of these actions.
There are many cases, petitions and writs similar to the one filed by Ekka, but the judiciary and the state have time and again ignored the disparity in the representation of social groups at higher levels of teaching and decision-making.
The petition filed by Vineet Boris Ekka could have led to significant conclusions had the case been studied thoughtfully. Instead, it was dismissed. Thus the recruitment processes that are practiced in private, quasi private and even public institutions often remain unconstitutional.
Arghya Bhaskar is an independent journalist.