Chennai: Slamming the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University for its stand that it is running on the strength of guest lecturers and there is no need to appoint regular faculty member, the Madras high court has directed the university to redo the selection process to the post of assistant professor in respect of environmental law by appointing an appropriate committee and complete the process based on the records already available within four weeks.
“We are appalled by the contention raised in the counter affidavit, in as much as the university seems to be running on the strength of guest Lecturers. If that be the case, they can dispense with the appointment of regular professors or lecturers in respect of all subjects.
This is not the way a university can function. Every subject which is being taught in a university, should be by a full time professor/lecturer. A guest lecturer is by way of supplement and not a primary mode of imparting education. We find that the attitude of the university, that is to say that there are guest lecturers to teach various law subjects and there is no need to appoint regular faculty members, would be an affront to our system of education and an abdication of its role as an educational institution”, said a Division Bench comprising Justices R. Sudhakar and S. Vaidyanathan.
The bench said this approach goes against the basic tenet of education that regular teachers should be appointed be it schools, colleges or universities, so that students were not deprived of a full-time regular teaching faculty. “We, therefore, reject the plea of the University that a full-time professor/lecturer is not required. On the contrary, it is a must”, the Bench added.
The bench allowed an appeal by P.R.L Rajavenkatesan, challenging an order of a single judge, which dismissed his petition against his non-selection to the post of assistant professor, environmental law in the law university.
After perusing the records produced by the University, the court said it does not appeal to it as to why the appellant, who holds the highest marks, was not selected. Therefore, the non-selection of the highest mark holder, in the considered opinion of this court, appears to be arbitrary.
