In a recent turn of events, the University Grants Commission (UGC) Chairperson, M. Jagadesh Kumar, acknowledged the uproar caused by the inclusion of a ‘de-reservation’ clause in the draft guidelines, which suggested that reserved faculty vacancies for the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Central universities could be de-reserved if not enough candidates from these communities were available to fill the positions. This draft, open for public feedback since its release on December 27, was quickly met with criticism from various academic and activist groups.
Following the backlash, M. Jagadesh Kumar clarified to the press that de-reservation would not be part of the final guidelines. This retraction came amidst widespread condemnation and claims that the Ministry of Education (MoE) and the UGC had no legal authority to introduce such a directive, as suggested by the former UGC Chairperson, Sukhdeo Thorat, among others. Additionally, the MoE reinforced that no reserved post, according to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Act of 2019, is to be subsequently de-reserved.
Amid the commotion, both the UGC Chairperson and the Vice-Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Santishree Pandit, maintained that there had been no previous instances of de-reservation within their institutions. The UGC declared its commitment to ensuring that backlog positions are filled up through concerted efforts, reassuring community members that the original tenets of reservation would stand protected. Meanwhile, political parties and student unions expressed concerns over the intentions behind the draft guidelines, with Congress alleging a conspiracy against the social justice measures in higher education, and the JNU Students’ Union organizing protests. The discussions and responses continue to evolve as the UGC and the Education Ministry navigate the complex issue of reservation in Indian academia.