Supreme Court expresses concern over NLU’s relying solely on contractual teaching staff [Read Order]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has showed its displeasure on being apprised that the National Law University, Jodhpur, considered to be an institute of excellence, is managed by contractual teaching staff only. 

The top court was again aghast to note that the institute was not having a Vice Chancellor at present while the Registrar was also contractual.

Terming the situation as "unacceptable and undesirable", a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia warned, "We would like an educational institution to remedy the position itself rather than we being called upon to remedy the position."

The court was hearing a matter arising out the Rajasthan High Court's 2019 judgement on appointment of contractual teachers.

"We find it a matter of great concern that a National Law University, which are institutions in forefront of legal education should operate only with contractual teachers. To say the least, this is unacceptable and undesirable," the bench said.

The court was informed that there have been some amendment to the regulations which provide for 50 % permanent staff and 50 % contractual.

"That has also not been implemented as yet! As per the University Grants Commission Regulations, it should be only 10 % contractual staff," the bench said.

Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the institute submitted that they are not aided institution.

"The point, however, remains that these are supposed to be institutions of excellence and you cannot expect excellence in institutions where there is constant inflow and outflow of teaching staff because they are contractual in character. It is time to remedy the position," the bench said.

Mehta sought short time to advise the clients. The court fixed the matter for hearing on October 31, 2023.

Advocate Rishabh Sancheti and other counsel, representing such  teachers defended the High Court's judgement, which had struck down service regulations providing for employing teachers on contract basis for a tenure or on ad hoc term only and providing for termination of contract by giving one month's notice as "manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable and in clear negation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

[Read Order]