The JNUTA has unanimously opposed the VC’s unilateral 5% supernumerary quota for employee wards, terming it a ‘regressive’ abuse of power. It demands the decision’s cancellation and accuses the VC of impropriety and administrative misconduct.
JNUTA Opposes ‘Regressive’ 5% Ward Quota
The General Body of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers Association (JNUTA) in its meeting held on April 21, 2026, discussed several issues including the unilateral decision of the Vice Chancellor to create a 5% supernumerary quota for admission to UG and PG Programmes for the wards of all JNU employees including teachers.
After detailed deliberation, the GBM unanimously decided to oppose what it saw as a regressive turn in the University’s Admission policy that stemmed not from any demand raised by teachers but yet another reflection of the blatant abuse of power resulting from the VC’s absolute control over decision making process. The GBM was of the view that what was really needed was strengthening of JNU’s progressive admission policy and the deprivation points system, including its restoration in Ph.D admissions. Reinstating deprivation points across all academic programmes and schools, rather than implementing a 5% supernumerary quota for the wards of JNU faculty or the ‘decision’ to implement 11% supernumerary seats for women students exclusive to the School of Engineering, would likely help in addressing the adverse trend seen over the last few years in the gender balance in students’ population.
Calls for Focus on Teachers’ Core Concerns
The General Body emphasized that the JNU Administration would do better by focusing on fundamental teachers’ concerns which include stopping unfair denial of legitimate benefits to teachers in promotion, counting of past service and recruitment, putting an end to the abuse of VC quota in housing allocation, providing mandatory creche facility for JNU community on-campus, and treating faculty with the respect they deserve.
The JNUTA GBM makes it crystal clear that the teachers of the University and their collective body has never sought such a privilege for their wards. The supposed ‘approval’ of the decision by the Academic and Executive Councils has been taken by the Vice Chancellor without consulting JNU teachers. Despite not being permitted to speak in the JNU Executive Council meeting, the elected representatives of the teachers have recorded their dissent on this matter in writing.
After detailed deliberation, the JNUTA GBM resolved that the existing system, which provided supernumerary seats (5 in UG and 3 in PG) exclusively for wards of non-teaching staff in Groups B, C, and D, was a vital measure to ensure access to students from the deprived sections, and introducing a quota for teachers’ children risks marginalizing or even abolishing the existing provisions for the children of non-teaching staff. Given that wards of teachers cannot be considered marginalized, providing them with privileged access to a public institution such as JNU lacks any rational or ethical justification. The university’s mission is uniquely centred on institutionalizing inclusive admission policies built on deprivation points for those disadvantaged on the basis of social, economic, gender or regional background.
Quota a ‘Distraction’ Amid Allegations Against VC
While JNUTA remains fully committed to these goals and has been continuously demanding the restoration of deprivation points in PhD admissions to ensure a more inclusive campus, the Vice Chancellor’s executive fiat to create a supernumerary quota for teachers’ wards ends up prioritizing privilege over equity. The JNUTA GBM also rejects the report of the committee, filled with hand-picked members by the Vice Chancellor, which supposedly recommended the introduction of the 5 percent supernumerary quota on the basis of a ‘detailed discussion’ in merely one sitting. The committee’s failure to provide even a feeble rationale for its recommendation speaks volumes about its way of functioning.
The JNUTA GBM therefore says an emphatic NO to the ward quota for JNU teachers and demands immediate cancellation of the decision. Lacking any clear justification, the sudden introduction of the ward quota appears to be a mere distraction from the Vice Chancellor’s ongoing and past administrative misconduct, violations that JNUTA has consistently opposed and officially reported to both the Visitor and the Parliament of India. That Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit was found guilty of “misconduct and moral turpitude” by a departmental inquiry committee headed by retired Justice J. A. Patil is no longer hidden. Professor Pandit was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of JNU despite her past records, and after taking charge she instrumentalised and weaponised the CAS promotions of JNU faculty to serve her personal agenda rather than processing them as a transparent institutional responsibility. While pressure from JNUTA has forced the Vice Chancellor to process certain CAS applications over the last 2 months, her biased ‘pick and choose’ pattern of discrimination continues to persist. JNUTA has already made clear how declaring “None Found Suitable” (NFS) in more than 40% of the total posts for which selection committees have been held is a scam and a clear violation of Constitutional obligations.
Allegations of Impropriety at School of Engineering
The most recent example of the Vice Chancellor’s subversion of institutional norms is the case of the School of Engineering where her daughter has been effectively working as a faculty member without having been appointed through any due process and enjoying the status of a ‘freelancer’ for over three years. This is confirmed not only by documents such as timetables circulated on the SoE website but also by her daughter’s self-declaration in the public domain that the work includes responsibilities like ‘designing coursework’, ‘advocating for a new curriculum’, ‘guiding students in research’, and ‘attending and participating in staff meetings’, among others.
Whether the individual concerned has the expertise to discharge the teaching responsibilities she has been given or whether she draws any salary from JNU is beside the point. This means that either the position she occupies is ‘supernumerary’ and not an officially sanctioned teaching role, or her holding of that position is preventing a regular selection process from taking place. The declaration of NFS (None Found Suitable) in direct recruitment at the School of Engineering only reinforces administrative bias. Either way, it smacks of gross impropriety, as this position, which she claims as part of her ‘professional experience’, is only available to her on account of her relationship with the VC of the university.
This impropriety is only exacerbated by the fact that the Vice Chancellor’s daughter has also reportedly accompanied and participated in the Vice Chancellor’s official JNU delegations abroad. The JNUTA GBM feels no pleasure in dragging a family member of the VC into this controversy. This issue is not with the family member but the Vice Chancellor, who must be held accountable for these improprieties since JNU is, after all, a public institution.
JNUTA Demands Immediate Removal of Vice Chancellor
The JNUTA GBM resolved to challenge the ‘ward quota’ and the Vice Chancellor’s misuse of authority for personal gain.
The concerns raised above, along with other issues discussed in the GBM, will be formally sent to the Visitor and the Ministry of Education reiterating JNUTA’s demand for immediate removal of the Vice Chancellor. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)