Observing that degrees through distance education are invariably earned only for furthering job prospects in the employment market, the Madras High Court has ruled that such degree holders cannot be considered for faculty positions in higher educational institutions.
Second Division Bench of Justices N. Kirubakaran and V. Parthiban said the distance education mode might have become a social imperative, considering the lack of access to regular education for a vast majority of the disadvantaged class, yet in the larger interest of higher education, such degree holders could not be considered for faculty positions.
“The quality of education can be measured through the type of teachers appointed to handle academics. Persons with no experience in campus life, having not studied and earned their degrees in regular institutions/colleges, may not have experienced institutional academic culture and may not match the expectations of the present generation of students,” the Bench said.
The verdict was delivered while disposing of a batch of cases related to the appointment of assistant professors (pre law) in government law colleges. The judges disapproved of the practice of appointing cross degree holders (undergraduate degree in one subject and postgraduate in another) to teach the subject in which they had obtained a PG degree.
Authoring the verdict for the Bench, Justice Parthiban wrote: “When a postgraduate degree is the minimum qualification for a teaching faculty, obtaining only a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject and claiming eligibility on that account is a clear attempt to hoodwink and get around the system due to a lack of clarity on the issue.”
He went on to state: “This court simply cannot comprehend the quality of the teacher if he/she has two degrees in two different subjects and get appointed as assistant professor for taking classes in major subjects like economics, commerce or technology, business administration. Such people cannot claim to have a depth of knowledge.”
The judges ruled that it was unnecessary for the State government to insist that candidates applying for the post of assistant professor (pre law), appointed to teach subjects other than law, must have obtained a master’s degree in law with a minimum 55% of marks, besides having enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council.
They held such insistence by the government was ex-facie irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable and in conflict with the minimum standards fixed by the Bar Council of India. The court criticised the State government for not putting in sincere efforts to persuade the court and justify the qualifications prescribed for faculty to teach pre-law courses.
“When the policy of the government is under serious attack, this court hardly finds any attempt made on behalf of the government to justify the qualifications prescribed for pre-law courses in government colleges. Despite opportunities afforded… this court finds a lackadaisical approach of the government throughout the hearings of the case,” the judges said.
