Thousands of ad hoc teachers at Delhi University, who have dedicated years of service to various colleges under the university’s umbrella, now find themselves in a distressing situation. As the process of hiring them as permanent faculty members began in April 2022, many have been displaced or simply shown the door. The crisis of ad hoc teachers at Delhi University has been brewing for a long time. Due to the prolonged absence of regular faculty interviews, colleges continued to rely on ad hoc teachers, resulting in the emergence of a significant pool of non-permanent teachers within the university system. Ad hoc positions were initially intended to address sudden and short-term vacancies in departments and colleges. However, the displacement of long-serving ad hoc teachers who fulfil all the necessary eligibility criteria and have dedicated the best years of their lives to Delhi University has caused immense distress.
This issue came to the forefront after the tragic suicide of Samarveer Singh, an ad hoc assistant professor at Hindu College, during the interviews for permanent teaching positions at the university. Samarveer Singh, belonging to the Other Backward Class (OBC) category, was found hanging in his home on April 28. Though no suicide note was discovered, Samarveer Singh’s cousin stated that he had been depressed after losing his job and witnessing someone else appointed in his place. Teacher’s death sparked protests from students and teachers at Delhi University, who argued that it amounted to institutional murder and that a brief interview could not justify displacing a teacher with years of experience. The ad hoc teachers express their surprise and disappointment at being shown the door after serving for an extended period. Many of them joined the university at a young age, making it difficult for them to seek alternative employment now that they have exceeded the age limit for certain positions.
One such teacher, Ritu Mehta, had her life abruptly altered in March of this year. She had been serving at Ramjas College for over twelve years when she learned that she had been removed from her position. Mehta recounts, “I joined Ramjas College as an ad hoc teacher at the age of 29 and dedicated almost twelve years of my life to the institution. In a matter of seconds, everything was taken away from me, and I couldn’t do anything about it. I am currently in a state where finding employment is challenging, and despite my efforts to explore all options, I consistently face rejection. I have a family to support, but who will consider our plight? My mother is ill, and I don’t have enough money to buy her medication or cover my daily expenses.” Mehta also highlights the case of a colleague who, after serving for over 14 years, was unable to pay her daughter’s school fees due to discontinuation from her services. This situation exemplifies the financial crisis faced by ad hoc teachers due to the ongoing recruitment process.
Universities, mostly state universities, have huge number of vacancies but due to financial crunches and other reasons are relying on ad hoc or guest faculty culture. Across various colleges, ad hoc teachers are being displaced and informed that their services are no longer required. As of April 2023, the plight of ad hoc teachers at Delhi University had reached an alarming level, with 75% of them being displaced or removed, while approximately 2000 were permanently hired. In 2007 a resolution by DU’s Executive Council, which stated that ad hoc appointments were meant to fill vacancies lasting between one month and 120 days. But ad hoc teachers have been working for years in continuity without being permanently hired with an trauma of uncertainty hanging over their minds. Many teachers argue that this situation reflects the government’s reluctance to invest in higher education, as ad hoc teachers are deprived of essential benefits such as medical benefits, pensions, gratuities, and leaves.
In India there are more than 50 Central Universities. And more than 400 State Universities controlled by State Governments. These institutes provide attractive career opportunities in teaching profession. As per Junior HRD Minister in Parliament, of the 18,905 sanctioned faculty posts in Central universities, 6,333 are vacant. Of the sanctioned 2,544 posts for professors, only 1,072, that is, 42% of the posts were filled. Of the 5,098 sanctioned posts for associate professors, only 2,702, that is, 53% of the posts were filled. The situation is slightly better for assistant professors, where out of 11,263 sanctioned posts, 12,572, that is 78%, are filled. Over 3,900 teaching posts are vacant in constituent colleges of the University of Delhi and over 3000 teachers are presently working on an ad-hoc basis against those vacant posts, Rajya Sabha was informed. Close to 33% of the sanctioned posts are lying vacant in the central universities. The highest percentage of vacancies are in the OBC category which is over 51% in the central universities and almost 42% in the IITs.
Dinesh Rawat, a permanent teacher at Delhi College of Arts and Commerce with over 20 years of service, expresses his concerns about the practice of replacing one ad hoc teacher with another, which goes against UGC rules. He believes that favoritism and affiliation with committees play a significant role in job selection, undermining the qualifications and experience of deserving candidates. Rawat emphasizes, “Ad hoc teachers have dedicated their lives to the colleges and built strong connections with the students. Biased interviews are shattering their hopes and adding to their miseries, which they have been enduring for a long time.” Many ad hoc teachers who are still awaiting interviews hope for recruitment but fear facing a similar fate as their colleagues. An anonymous ad hoc teacher states, “I have a PhD and have served here for the last fifteen years. I have given an interview, and more are scheduled, but considering how the system is treating others, and us I doubt if I will be hired. However, I will remain hopeful and see what unfolds.”
Apropos of ‘Wounded selves of ad hoc teachers’; the article rightly highlights the ills that so-called ‘model employers’ like the Central government or premier education bodies perpetuate. Ad hoc teachers may have demonstrated their academic worth through research work and teaching over the years, but when it comes to regular appointments, their contribution is trashed by ‘experts’ during the interview. Selections are made after taking into account political connections and social standing. It is natural for ad hoc teachers to feel frustrated and depressed on being rejected despite being deserving candidates. Delhi University one of the premier university has around 12,000 teaching posts of teachers in its various colleges and centres. There are around 5,000 ad hoc teachers in the university. Guest teachers are worse off. Qualified enough to teach college students, they are paid by the hour and can deliver a maximum of 25 lectures per month. Each lecture lasts an hour and the fixed pay is Rs. 1,000 per lecture. So, a guest teacher can at the most make Rs. 25,000 a month.
Academics believe that the consequences of large-scale ad hoc appointments are grave and will be felt by the future generations. In this ad-hoc and guest teacher scenario teachers do not grow either professionally and at the other, students are losing because there aren’t enough supervisors for MPhil or PhD. Ad hoc teachers in the departments cannot guide research.” Credible estimates indicate that until recently, there were around 4,500 ad hoc teachers working only in DU colleges. Some of them have been working for more than a decade. Bereft of the social security benefits like Provident Fund (PF), pensions, health insurance and even basic leaves, these ad hoc teachers are pushed to the brink of uncertainties.
Ad-Hoc ism is an institutional exploitation to push ad-hoc teachers through this for years on end. It is a clear case of being made to work in unequal conditions for equal work.” Among other things, ad hoc teachers are neither entitled to promotions for instance, nor to increments in pay, The global spread of short-time contractual employment, combined, in the case of today’s India, with the need to ensure that the people employed, either as permanent faculty or on short-term contracts, will remain pliable and ideologically aligned to the requirements of the regime currently in power. This form of ‘institutional exploitation’, becomes many times compounded when these ad hoc faculties, in their times of extreme crisis, don’t even get the support of their own colleagues with whom they have shared work, concerns, struggles and moments of happiness for years. This clearly depicts that the current ruling regime in India is more interested in putting more than needed resources in purchase of destructive weapons and armaments and not on pillars of strength in a civilised society.
Acknowledging the wrongs they have suffered and the invaluable contributions they have made through the intellectual and administrative labour they have put in towards the survival and daily making of colleges and departments as theatres of the possible and as sites for critical thought, social relationships and practice for all – including for permanent employees – teachers working in ‘ad-hoc’ capacity should, in all fairness and through appropriate mechanisms that respect the framework of the 200-Point DoPT Roster, be retained as permanent faculty. This would, by any norms and standards of natural justice, be the only dignified and just measure of recognising the well-deserved claim to their jobs that has accrued to ‘ad-hocs’ as an earned right through dint of long histories of work done by them in the adverse, if not hostile, working conditions and environments thrust upon them.
This wheel of destruction demands serious collective deliberation towards devising ways of addressing the prevailing unprecedented existential crisis at state educational institutions in solidarity with all ‘ad-hoc’ teachers based upon an understanding and appreciation of their demand for permanent employment in their current places of work.
All of this has been informed by the understanding that ‘ad-hoc’ conditions must remain a transient moment in teachers’ lives, and that too only if absolutely necessary; that the regular work of teaching demands regular forms of employment; and that anything else would constitute unfair labour practice and negatively impact teachers’ work. It would, for instance – as indeed it has done – jeopardise the freedom to think critically and speak and teach without fear, allow deeply entrenched hierarchies and arbitrariness, sycophancy and obsequiousness, to inform all practices of institutional functioning, and cause long-term mental and physical damage to those faced with job insecurity or unemployment. The result of ad hoc culture has been the ‘permanent’ creation of a huge body of overburdened and harassed teachers, never absolutely certain about the renewal of their four-month long appointment contracts, and who even with renewal, have always suffered a day’s break in service between their two dates of appointment, while however, continuing to work on that particular day. This has effectively meant that ‘ad-hoc’ appointees have ended up working without pay on all break-in-service-days, year in and year out.
