Hypocritic Faculty Recruitment Process in the Institutes of Architecture and Planning, India

Education plays a vital role in the development of the nation by improving people’s skills. In the past few decades, the profession of Architecture and Planning has become more popular than ever in India. It highlights the need for world-class academicians to transform students into ethical professionals. The government regulates the profession of architecture and planning with the help of technical bodies but is unable to maintain a transparent faculty recruitment process throughout the nation. The study attempts to highlight the loopholes in the recruitment rules and regulations, non-compliance with official guidelines, and the government’s ignorance against the violence by Higher Education Institutes or Institutes of National Importance. In the end, recommendations have been formulated to resolve the identified issues by adopting a transparent credible methodology through the National Recruitment Exam for the recruitment of faculty members at the National or State level.

Education is one of the significant parameters and literacy rate is an important indicator for society development, which plays a crucial role in the overall development of a Nation as well. The identity of a country majorly depends on the education status of the society, which can be measured in terms of literacy rate. To achieve a higher literacy rate, it is essential to regulate and maintain the level and quality of education throughout the nation. Education helps in gaining academic proficiency, improving technical skills, and contributing significantly to the personal development of society. Moreover, a well-educated society helps in attaining a healthier society, economic stability, social equality, and political balance in the nation [1]. Therefore, education encompasses all facets of the learner’s nature, including intellectual, religious, moral, and physical, and goes beyond just preparing and filling the mind with information [2]. In the past couple of decades, education in the field of Architecture and Planning has changed drastically. The number of architectural institutes has increased from 50 in the 1990s to 240 in 2011 [3]. Whereas, presently, the count of recognized architectural and planning institutes is 406 and 51 respectively [4], [5]. The huge growth in the number of institutes imparting architectural and planning education clearly shows the shift towards urban and regional planning for the sustainable development of the nation. As a result of, the recruitment of good faculty members is crucial for the students as well as for the nation’s development. Also, according to Charles Kuralt, ‘only a good teacher knows how to bring out the best in students’. Therefore, it is important to recruit deserving academicians, who can transform students into world-class professionals.

In India, Ministry of Education (MoE), formerly known as Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), is the apex body that recognises educational institutes, i.e. schools and higher institutes [6]. MoE guides all the educational institutes to work in the same direction in order to achieve the aim. The ministry controls the quality of all the technical institutes and provides recognition to the institutes through ‘All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE)’ and ‘University Grand Commission (UGC)’ respectively. For architectural institutes, Council of

Architecture (CoA) has been formulated to regulate and maintain the level of education in India [7]. Whereas, the planning institutes voluntarily apply for Institute of Town Planning, India (ITPI) recognition [8]. Both the institutes, i.e. CoA and ITPI, are responsible to work for the development of the profession along with providing membership to qualified architects and planners respectively.

The aforesaid structure of recognising, improving, monitoring, and coordinating at the national level seems to be perfect and transparent for the nation. Yet, there are many hidden loopholes in the overall system, especially in the faculty recruitment process of Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs) and Institutes of National Importance (INI). The ministry along with the other regulatory bodies are more worried about the innovations to improve the existing educational system such as (i) provision of online classes; (ii) uploading of lecture notes and presentations on an online portal; (iii) conducting online quizzes; (iv) online submission of assignment; and so on. But, unfortunately, the ministry seems to be less interested to take any initiative to make the faculty recruitment process more transparent through an online mode.

In this research paper, the problems associated with the faculty recruitment process in HEIs and INI have been discussed, such as (i) manipulation in number of vacant and backlogs post; (ii) hiding the existing teacher-student ratio against the prescribed norms; (iii) non transparent credible methodology; (iv) schedule of interviews on the same dates; (v) biasness in interview weightage; and (vi) non-updation of final result along with the waiting list on the official website, etc. These issues are not the outcome of failure of the regulatory bodies but the result of sheer ignorance.

The research paper is structured into six sections. First section describes the introduction of the paper that sets out the purpose of the research. Second section provides an overview of the sampling method and primary survey process adopted in the research. Third section reviews the government institutional set- up which regulates the profession of Architecture and Planning in India. Fourth section critically analysis the faculty recruitment process in light of survey results. Fifth section explains a set of key recommendations for improving the existing faculty recruitment process in Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs) and Institutes of National Importance (INI). The last section concludes the comprehensive research briefly.

 RESEARCH DESIGN

The applied research has been carried out by the researcher in order to critically analyse the faculty recruitment process in Architecture and Planning institutes of India. The researcher has used the snowball sampling method to obtain a sample of participants. The data used in the research is collected through ‘Google Forms’ followed by the ‘Non- Directive Interview’, and ‘Participant Observation Method’. The whole process of primary survey has been divided into three stages. First, the survey form

consisting of 13 closed-ended questions was prepared on Google Forms. A pilot survey was conducted from 3 March to 5 March 2022. Based on the pilot survey response pattern, the final survey form was prepared after incorporating the required changes. The final survey form consists of 13 closed-ended questions on Google Forms. Second, the primary survey was conducted from 6 March to 14 March 2023. By leveraging the power of digitalisation, the link of Google Forms was shared with the target group through WhatsApp Messenger. The target group for the research consists of the faculty members who have given an interview in the HEIs or INI in the last five years only, i.e. 2018 to 2023. The researcher was able to collect 53 samples using the snowball sampling method. Third, Non-Directive Interview is carried out based on the respondent’s availability and willingness. Out of the total respondents (53), only 27 respondents gave the interview. At the time of interview, the researcher also used the ‘Participant Observation Method’ to record the crucial data.

INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP

The architecture and planning domains are one of the major contributors in the development of the nation. The government needs to do the quality check and provide world-class infrastructure facilities through organisational control. Therefore, this section highlights the role of various professional bodies in India, which regulates the domain of architecture and planning in India.

 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

The Ministry of Education (MoE), formerly known as Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), has been formulated on 26 September 1985. MoE plays a crucial role in achieving a better quality of education throughout the nation. The objectives of the MoE are to (i) formulate National Policy on Education; (ii) improve quality of education; (iii) pay special attention to disadvantaged groups such as poor, females, and minorities; (iv) provide financial aid to deserving students; (v) promote international cooperation and collaboration to improve the education system of the nation. MoE works through two departments i.e. (i) Department of School Education & Literacy, which is accountable for the development of education in the schools, and (ii) Department of Higher Education, which deals with the Higher Education systems of India [9].

MoE controls architectural and planning education system of the country mainly through University Grants Commission (UGC); All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE); and Council of Architecture (CoA) [10]. Therefore, it is important to understand the role of all the aforementioned bodies in the overall architectural and planning education system of India along with the role of ITPI.

 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

University Grants Commission (UGC) is formally set up as a statutory body by the Government of India (GoI) on 5 November 1956 under the UGC Act 1956. The prime responsibility of UGC is to coordinate, determine and maintain the standards of education (teaching, examination, and research) in the universities of India [11]. However, even after more than 66 years of the establishment of UGC, many educational institutes are not having the faculty members in appropriate numbers. Even the selection pattern followed by different Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs)/Institutes of National Importance (INI) is different.

In order to maintain the quality of good education, the UGC has issued a letter (D.O.No.F.1- 14/2019(CPP-II), dated: 4 June 2019) to all the HEIs/INI asking them to follow the guidelines for faculty recruitment prepared by the UGC and to fill the vacant posts without any further delay [12]. As per the letter, HEIs/INI are supposed to (i) follow the selection process as per the respective acts, statutes, or constituent documents and in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018; (ii) ensure that all the backlog or vacant posts are to be uploaded on the online portal of National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC) i.e. https://nherc.in. The MoE and UGC are supposed to monitor the recruitment process through this online portal as well; (iii) commence and complete the recruitment process within a period of six months. The HEIs are supposed to upload the result on the official website or online portal and issue the appointment letter to all the selected candidates. In case of violations of the guidelines, UGC may take appropriate action against the institutions including withholding the grants [13]. But, many HEIs/INI have neither recruited faculty members nor uploaded any information on the online portal. In fact, the online portal seems not to be working efficiently. Therefore, UGC has changed the domain of the online portal from https://nherc.in to https://uamp.ugc.ac.in/ and requested all the HEIs to fill the vacant faculty posts via letter D.O.No. 1-14/2019(CPP-II), dated: 26 November 2021 [14]. The new online portal is named as University Activity Monitoring Portal (UAMP).

According to UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018, the faculty recruitment process must be transparent. The HEIs/INI will use a credible methodology based on a performance analysis based on the applicant’s credentials and calculated using the weighting of the applicant’s performance in relation to the relevant parameters, to measure his/her performance in a grading system [15].

 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is initially constituted as an advisory body in 1945 and given statutory status under the AICTE Act, 1987 in November 1987. The objective of AICTE is to (i) promote the quality improvement of technical education; (ii) plan and coordinate in the overall development; and (ii) regulate and maintain the norms and standards in the technical education system of India [16]. As per the judgement made by the Supreme Court of India in November 2019, the architectural institutions are under the control of Council of Architecture (CoA) instead of AICTE [17]. Therefore, it becomes important to understand the role of CoA in professional as well as in the field of Architecture.

 COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE

The Council of Architecture (CoA) is established as a statutory body under the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 by Government of India (GoI). The Architects Act, 1972 is enacted by the Parliament of India and came into force on 1 September 1972. The CoA is responsible to recognise architectural qualifications (under section 14), regulating the minimum standards of architectural education (under section 21), prescribing standards of professional & code of ethics for architects (under section 22), and providing registration to Architects (under section 23 to 29) [18]. As per the latest list uploaded on the official website of CoA (as of 5 March 2023), there are 406 recognised architectural institutes in India [4]. The institutes include constituent colleges/departments of universities, deemed universities, affiliated colleges/schools, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), National Institute of Technology (NIT), School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), and autonomous institutions.

As per the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations (1983), the institute is supposed to maintain a teacher- student ratio of 1:8 and recommended to have a staff structure of Principal or Head of Department and Professor to Assistant Professor/Reader to Lecturer in a ratio of 1:2:4 [19]. However, as per the new regulations, i.e. Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations (2020), the institute is allowed to maintain a teacher- student ratio of 1:10, and Associate Professor to Assistant Professor in the cadre ratio of 1:2. However, the new appointment of faculty will be as per norms of AICTE/UGC [20].

INSTITUTE OF TOWN PLANNER INDIA

The Institute of Town Planners, India (ITPI) has been founded in July 1951. Its objective is to (i) improve the study of town planning; (ii) promote planned, economic, scientific, and artistic development of urban and rural settlements of India; (iii) promote ethical practice; (iv) foster the teaching and assist in providing teaching; (v) provide membership to the candidates after proper screening of documents; (vi) analyse the law and procure changes; (vii) organize discussion and award medals for excellence work; (viii) form and maintain the library (ix) notify the law, compile, print and publish professional data relating to town and country planning [21].

The ITPI also gives recognition to planning institutions in India and claims that the planning institutes approach the ITPI voluntarily for the recognition. The ITPI has recognised 51 planning institutes (as of 5 March 2023), which are offering under-graduation, post-graduation, and post- graduation diploma in planning, in India [5].

 LOOPHOLES   IN  FACULTY RECRUITMENT PROCESS

The Ministry of Education is the apex body for monitoring the recruitment process along with the UGC. At times, the process of recruitment seems to be arbitrary and non-transparent due to the inefficient operation of regulatory bodies. Therefore, the primary survey is conducted to understand the loopholes associated with the faculty recruitment process. Then, the collected data has been critically analysed and classified into the following categories:

  VACANT POSTS

Most of the HEIs or INI do not share the details related to the total number of vacant posts along with the backlog and reserved category seats in the recruitment notification. From the primary survey, it has been observed that most of the institutes prefer to mention the total number of vacancies in the recruitment advertisement instead of category-wise bifurcation. Out of the total sample (53), 98% (52) of respondents think that the category-wise number of vacancies for the post of ‘Assistant Professor’, ‘Associate Professor’, and ‘Professor’ must be mentioned in the recruitment advertisement of HEIs/INI. Further, as per point number two of the Selection Procedure under the Recruitment Guidelines issued by the UGC (dated: 4 June 2019), the HEIs/INI are supposed to upload the information related to the vacant post along with the reservations on the University Activity Monitoring Portal (UAMP) online portal (https://uamp.ugc.ac.in/). The UAMP is an important initiative by UGC to ensure that universities are being monitored and held accountable for their activities. However, despite its importance, only 32% (17) of respondents are aware of this portal’s launch. This lack of knowledge is due to a lack of advertising or communication on the part of UGC regarding the launch of the portal. Therefore, it is important to spread awareness so that more people can benefit from this platform and make use of it. However, no information related to the HEIs/INI vacant posts is available on the online portal until today. Also, the UAMP portal does not work well and is often temporarily out of service on a frequent basis. It is a clear violation of UGC guidelines and an example of a non-transparent recruitment process.

  TEACHER-STUDENT RATIO

The teacher-student ratio is an important factor in determining the quality of education in any institution. HEIs/INI do not share the details of faculty shortage as per the teacher-student ratio. It means that it is difficult to justify whether the HEIs/INI intends to recruit a sufficient number of faculty members or not. A recent survey has found that 75% (40) of respondents want the existing teacher-student ratio to be mentioned in recruitment advertisements of HEIs/INI. It highlights the importance of including this information in order to accurately inform potential candidates about what to expect when taking up a faculty position. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for institutions to consider increasing their teacher-student ratios in order to provide an effective learning environment. Interestingly, the teacher-student ratio is mentioned under the UGC, CoA, and ITPI guidelines but nowhere in the regulation, there is a provision to add the details of vacant posts against the desirable teacher-student ratio on the official website permanently.

  CREDIBLE METHODOLOGY

As per the ‘sub-clause I’ of ‘clause 6’ of ‘University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018’, the recruitment process must follow a transparent and credible methodology to analyse the merits and credentials of the candidate based on the weighting of performance under various relevant parameters on a grading proforma. The template of the grading performa is also given in the UGC regulation. A survey has found that an overwhelming majority of people, i.e. around 98% (52) feel that the HEIs/INI should adopt a transparent and credible methodology during its recruitment process. The results of the survey demonstrate how important transparency and credibility are to people when it comes to hiring decisions. Such feedback from the public highlights the need for HEIs/INI to make sure its recruitment process is transparent, fair, effective, efficient, and fully based on merit. According to a recent survey, 60% (32) of respondents think that a written exam should be part of the recruitment process for shortlisting candidates for an interview. This is because a written exam can help in identifying the candidate’s knowledge and skills in an objective manner, and shortlist those who are most qualified for the job. Additionally, it assures that each applicant is given an equal opportunity to demonstrate their abilities and skills, thus eliminating any bias or prejudice during the selection process. According to 74% (39) of respondents, the written exam results for every candidate who was shortlisted and called for an interview should be posted on the institute’s official website. It would increase transparency in the selection process and allow candidates to assess their performance relative to others. It would also provide an opportunity to make sure that candidates with the right skills and knowledge are chosen based on their qualifications, experience, and aptitude.

 DATE OF INTERVIEW

The faculty recruitment process in the HEIs/INI is quite arbitrary and has a lot of issues. In order to explain the problems engulfed with the faculty recruitment process, the recruitment process of IITs, NITs, and SPAs has been critically analysed along with the remaining HEIs/INI. All three institutes have been established and funded by MoE, and also attained the status of “Institute of National Importance” [22]. At times, the interview has been scheduled on the same date for two different HEIs/INI. As indicated by the survey results, 93% (49) of people want multiple HEIs or INI to not conduct interviews on the same date. It would prevent candidates from having to choose one over the other, thus allowing them to make an informed decision about which institution to attend. In addition, it would prevent overcrowding at any one institution and provide all the candidates a fair chance of being interviewed. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of all the HEIs/INI to schedule the interview on different dates. In fact, according to point number two of the Selection Procedure under the Recruitment Guidelines issued by the UGC (dated: 4 June 2019), UGC is supposed to monitor the whole recruitment process through UAMP portal i.e. https://uamp.ugc.ac.in/. However, it has been not only ignored by the institute’s administration, but MoE, UGC, CoA, and ITPI have also failed miserably to monitor the faculty recruitment process.

 INTERVIEW WEIGHTAGE

The weight assigned to the interview with respect to the overall weight, i.e. 100 percent, is the most important parameter and plays a vital role in the selection process. According to a recent survey, it has been found that around 70% (37) of respondents agree to assign more than 20% weightage to personal interviews when evaluating candidates for a permanent position (Error! Reference source not found.). It indicates that personal interviews are still considered to be a crucial component in the hiring process and that recruiting institutes place a significant emphasis on the subjective assessment of a candidate’s communication skills, personality, and overall fit with the institute culture.

  Table 1. Personal Interview Weightage          

S.no.	Interview Weightage Out of 100%	Respondents   (in no.)	(in %)
1	Less than 5%	0	0
2	6% to 10%	2	4
3	11% to 15%	8	15
4	16% to 20%	6	11
5	More than 20% 37	37	70
6	Total 53	53	100%

Source: Author, Primary Survey, 2023

It highlights the importance of preparing well for an interview and being able to effectively showcase one’s skills and qualifications to potential employers. However, many respondents argue that giving more weight to the personal interview may distort the final merit. However, HEIs/INI do not disclose the weightage of the interview to the candidates and violate the UGC regulations by not following a transparent process.

From the detailed discussion with the respondents, it has been observed that the actual time slot allocated to the candidates during the interview is too small, which varies from 5 minutes to 30 minutes. In fact, sometimes, it is less than 5 minutes. If the interview lasts less than 5 minutes, the person does not have enough time to represent himself/herself and show his/her skills. As a result of which, 68% (36) of respondents suggested that all persons invited for an interview be given equal time, and the duration should range from a minimum of 10 minutes to a maximum of 20 minutes per person (Table 2).

Table 2. Duration of Personal Interview
S. No.	Time Duration	Respondents
		(in no.)	(in %)
1.	Less than 5	0	0
2.	5 to 10	10	19
3.	10 to 15	17	32
4.	15 to 20	19	36
5.	More than 20	7	13
6.	Total	53	100%

Source: Author, Primary Survey, 2023

Moreover, in many cases, unofficially, selection depends primarily on the interview (unofficially, 80% to 100% importance is attached to the interview). In purely mathematical terms, this is equivalent to 1% per minute compared to the weighting of other credentials such as schooling (usually 15 years of study), B.Arch (at least 5 years of study), M.Plan or M.Arch (at least 2 years of study), work experience (at least 1 year of experience), and then publications, Short-Term Courses (STPs), Faculty Development Programmes (FDPs); etc. This is a very big problem because applicants are often selected primarily on the basis of interview, with no disclosure of the weighting of each component.

RESULT DECLARATION

It is important that all applicants who appeared for an interview are given equal opportunity and their final results are published on the official website of the institute. According to the recruitment advertisement of HEIs/INI, all communications related to the recruitment process are supposed to be made by email only, and applicants are advised to visit the HEIs or INI website on regularly. However, many HEIs/INI have announced the result, which has not been uploaded on the official website of HEIs/INI or UAMP portal i.e. https://uamp.ugc.ac.in/. Only the selected candidates received the email from the side of HEIs / INI. On inquiry, the institute not only refused to disclose the final result to the candidates who appeared for the interview but also refused to publish the result on the official website. According to a recent survey, 87% (46) of respondents believe that the category-wise final result should be published on the official website of the institute along with the waiting list in order to promote transparency and fairness in the faculty recruitment process. It would also help the institute to make better decisions when it comes to hiring and provide potential candidates with more information about their chances. Publishing interview result on the official website would also make sure that all applicants receive timely feedback regarding their performance during the interview process. Also, as per serial no. 8 under the head of “Time Frame for Recruitment”, the HEIs have to issue the appointment letter and upload it on HEI website and UAMP portal. Even after non-compliance with the guidelines issued by the UGC, no action has been taken against these institutions till date. The most astonishing thing is that the UAMP portal set up by the UGC to monitor the recruitment process is not working efficiently.

The UGC has clearly stated that violations of the guidelines may result in appropriate action against the institutions, including withholding of grants. However, no action has been taken against any of the institutions. It shows that the MoE and the UGC have failed miserably in monitoring the faculty recruitment process. Otherwise, how come the institutes are allowed to (i) manipulate the number of vacant and backlogs post; (ii) hiding the existing teacher-student ratio against the prescribed norms; (iii) follow the non- transparent credible methodology; (iv) schedule of interviews on the same dates; (v) biasness in interview weightage; and (vi) non-updation of final result along with the waiting list on the official website. It shows that the ministry and other official bodies act according to the needs of HEIs/INI and sometimes seem to be regulated by HEIs/INI.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The aforesaid problems are the outcomes of different recruitment rules and regulations of various HEI/INI. These problems can be easily eliminated by conducting the recruitment process of all the INI through the common platform based on a transparent credible methodology. The candidate will apply online through the online platform, select the institute preferences, and fill out the evaluation application form. In this respect, the author has formulated the following recommendations based on the primary survey. First, to ensure the timely recruitment against the vacant posts and effective implementation of reservation policies, it is essential to upload the list of vacant posts along with their backlog and reserved seats information on a common online portal for all the HEIs/INI on a yearly basis. It will help the HEIs/INI in streamlining the process of vacancy filling, and can accordingly plan their recruitment process. Second, it is essential to ensure that there is an optimum number of faculty members to manage the students and provide them with effective guidance and instruction.

To ensure this, calculating the teacher-student ratio department-wise and uploading it on the online portal along with other data related to vacant posts can be beneficial. It would help to identify any vacant positions that need filling up as well as get a better understanding of the current teacher-student ratio for each department.

Third, a transparent recruitment methodology is a must-have for every institute. A written examination must be conducted to shortlist the most suitable candidates for interviews. The marks of the written exam would be published on the website in order to ensure accountability and fairness in the recruitment process. It also encourages applicants to be more prepared and knowledgeable. Moreover, assigning defined weightage to curriculum and work experience helps recruiters assign the right score to each candidate based on their qualifications and experience. This helps ensure that everyone is given an equal opportunity during the recruitment process, resulting in a more efficient and fair recruitment procedure. Forth, in order to ensure that the interviews of all the HEIs/INI are conducted smoothly and without any overlap, the Ministry of Education (MoE) and University Grants Commission (UGC) would make it mandatory for all the HEIs/INI across India to get their interview dates approved by UGC. This will help to prevent two or more different INIs from scheduling the interview on the same date, thus ensuring that all candidates are given an equal opportunity to appear for the interview. It is important to set the weighting of interviews up to a reasonable limit to make the process transparent and close the door to any sort of biasness. As per the Format for Recognition / Review of Planning Courses or Schools given by ITPI, the weightage for the selection of applicants in graduation and postgraduation interviews shall not exceed 20 percent of the total marks for admission. The same standard must be followed for the faculty recruitment process at the institutional level. Additionally, the duration of an interview becomes even more important when it comes to getting the best out of the interaction between recruiters and candidates. A short interview timeframe can leave the recruiters feeling rushed, while a long duration can lead to monotony and fatigue. Therefore, the time span of 10 to 20 minutes will be imperative to ensure that all parties involved get enough time to express their views in a pleasant yet professional atmosphere. This duration also allows for detailed discussions as well as a meaningful conversation between recruiters and candidates, and gives candidates ample opportunities to demonstrate their skillset.

Lastly, in order to ensure a smoother and more efficient recruitment process, the final result must be uploaded in an organized manner on UAMP portal as well as on the official website of the respective HEIs/INI website, along with the marks and waitlist. This system will surely increase the transparency between candidate, institute, and recognised body. In addition, with a surge in competition, ensuring the proper selection of deserving candidates is becoming more and more complex. To make this process easier, the common exam at the National level, may be called as National Recruitment Exam (NRE) for Assistant Professor / Associate Professor, to be introduced in the HEIs/INI. According to a recent survey, 64% (34) of respondents believe that the final merit list of an NRE should be determined by a combination of written exam scores and performance in other areas set by UGC. By relying on the final merit and candidate preference, the institute allocations can be done with confidence and accuracy. The transparent faculty recruitment process is an important factor in achieving trust and respect in the workplace. Despite this, it appears that only a small number of people (26%) believe that live telecasting of recruitment interviews on national channels is one way to ensure transparency. This figure is surprising considering that this would not only increase transparency but also make the recruitment process more efficient. The low confidence in recruiting interviews being made public implies that the candidates may not be completely honest and want to use the loopholes in the faculty recruitment process for their personal benefits. However, the approach would be helpful for the youngster preparing for interview and also make the whole process more transparent.

CONCLUSION

Generally, education is associated only with the process of developing technical skills, improving knowledge, and developing critical thinking. But, education also gives power to the candidates to contribute in the development of the Nation along with their personal development. So, it is important to provide quality education to the students and that can only be delivered by a good and experienced faculty. Therefore, it is important to make the recruitment system more transparent by eliminating loopholes and closing the doors for favouring a particular candidate. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the Ministry to work together with various bodies such as AICTE, UGC, CoA, and ITPI to improve the nation’s educational standards by recruiting a potential faculty based on the merit. The amendment of regulations related to Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education is a necessity of the current scenario.

The major issues associated with the recruitment process of HEIs/INI are (i) category-wise number of vacant seats and backlog posts are not published in the advertisement; (ii) existing teacher-student ratio against the prescribed norms is not shared; (iii) credible methodology is not transparent; (iv) interview of more than one institute is scheduled on same dates; (v) interview weightage is not defined in the recruitment process; and (vi) final result of selected candidates is not published on the official website, etc. It has been also observed that neither the ministry nor the UGC took any action against the HEIs/INI after the violation of the guidelines. Such as big ignorance and biased behavior of the regulating and monitoring bodies is not only the insult of the intellectual capital of the deserving candidate but also an act of hypocritic governance.

Education is the main aspect of a nation’s development. The deficiency of educated people in the nations has the ability to stop the further growth. Therefore, it becomes crucial to maintain a good level of education by recruiting top-class professionals. The most appropriate recommendation to overcome the problems is to appoint the faculty through National Recruitment Exam (NRE), which evaluates the candidacy of an applicant through credible methodology.

 

REFERENCES

• Idris, Z. Hassan, A. Ya’acob, S. K. Gill, and A. M. Awal, “The role of education in shaping youth’s national identity,” Procedia Soc Behav Sci, vol. 59, pp. 443–450, Oct. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.299.

• Hill, “The History and Development of International Mindedness,” in The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education, M. Hayden, J. Levy, and J. Thompson, Eds., Second.Croydon (UK): SAGE Publishing, 2015, pp. 28–44.
• J. L. Kitchley, “Architectural Education and the Current Professional Scenario,” Council of Architecture Magazine: Time, Space and People, vol. 12, no. 4, Delhi, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260089 118
• CoA: Council of Architecture, “List of Approved Institutions,” Council of Architecture, Mar. 05, https://www.coa.gov.in/institutionStatus.php (accessed Mar. 05, 2023).

• ITPI: Institute of Town Planners India, “List of School, Institution and Universities Recognized by ITPI,” Institute of Town Planners India, Dec.09,                                                                         2022.https://www.itpi.org.in/uploads/pdfs/1list-of- school-institution-and-universities-recognized- by-itpi.pdf (accessed Mar. 05, 2023).

• GoI: Government of India, The Gazette of India: Extraordinary. New Delhi, India: Cabinet Secretariat, 2020. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available:https://www.govtstaff.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/08/ministry-of-hrd-is-now- ministry-of-education-gazette-notification.pdf

• R. Khan and R. Kumar, “Present Scenario of Architecture Education In India,” International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 125–131, 2017.
• S. Meshram, “Energizing Town Planning Education in India: Way Forward,” Journal of Institute of Town Planners India, vol. 17, no. 2,1–27, 2020, Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available:https://www.itpi.org.in/uploads/journalfiles/17×2 final.pdf

• MoE: Ministry of Education, “About MoE,” https://www.education.gov.in/about-moe(accessed Mar. 05, 2023).

• MoE: Ministry of Education, “Apex Level Bodies,”https://www.education.gov.in/apex-level-bodies (accessed Mar. 05, 2023).

• UGC: University Grants Commission, The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and Rules, Regulations under the Act. New Delhi: University Grants Commission, 1956. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.ugac.in/oldpdf/ugc_act.pdf
• UGC: University Grants Commission, “Letter on Guidelines for Recruitment of Faculty in Universities Colleges and Institutions Deemed to be Universities,” Jun. 02, 2019. https://www.ugac.in/pdfnews/6708219_UGC- Letter-to-VCs-reg-Guidlelines-on-Faculty- Recruitment.pdf (accessed Mar. 05, 2023).
• UGC: University        Grants        Commission, “Guidelines for Recruitment of Faculty in Universities, Colleges and Institutions Deemed to be Universities,” 04, 2019. https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/0318898_Revise d-Guidelines-for-recruitment-of-faculty- 04.06.2019.pdf (accessed Mar. 05, 2023).
• UGC: University Grants Commission, “Recruitment of Faculty in Universities, Institutions Deemed to be Universities and Colleges,”  26,  2021.https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/3448329_RECR UITMENT-of-Faculty-in-Universityes.pdf (accessed Mar. 05, 2023).

• GoI: Government of India, University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards inHigher Education) Regulations, 2018. New Delhi, 2018. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/4033931_UGC-Regulation_min_Qualification_Jul2018.pdf

• GoI: Government of India, All India Council For Technical Education Act, 1987. New Delhi, Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.aicte- india.org/downloads/aicteact.pdf
• CoA: Council of Architecture, “SC Judgement on Architectural Education,” New Delhi, 2019. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.cogov.in/app/myauth/judgement/S C_Judgement_on_Architectural_Education.pdf
• GoI: Government of India, Architects Act 1972. New Delhi: Government of India, 1972. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://coa.gov.in/showfile.php?lang=1&level=1& sublinkid=1144&lid=1022
• CoA: Council of Architecture, Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983. New Delhi: Council of Architecture, 1983. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://coa.gov.in/showfile.php?lang=1&level=1& sublinkid=207&lid=151
• CoA: Council of Architecture, Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 2020. New Delhi: Government of India, 2020. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://coa.gov.in/showfile.php?lang=1&level=1& sublinkid=1003&lid=599
• ITPI: Institute of Town Planners India, “ITPI Objectives,”https://www.itpi.org.in/pages/objectives (accessed Mar. 05, 2023).

• MoE: Ministry of Education, “Institutions of National Importance,” 2023. Accessed: Mar. 05,[Online]. Available: https://www.education.gov.in/institutions- national-importance

 

Disclaimer:

The above research paper has been published in jagritimedia with the consent of the author. The present paper has also been published in  conference paper proceedings in the Special Issue-1 of ‘International Journal of Technology Engineering Arts Mathematics Science’ (https://aissmsioitresearch.com/special-issue/).

Author