Nagaland higher education needs a policy reset
Moa Jamir
The recent significant judgment of the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) on contractual appointments, at least for the present, to have brought some closure to a long-standing legal dispute with consequences extending far beyond the litigants. Whether the State Government chooses to pursue further legal recourse remains to be seen, but it would do well to recognise the judgment instead as an opportunity to address a problem that has been allowed to persist for far too long.
While constitutional violations form an important part of the judgment, equally consequential is what it reveals about the State’s management of higher education over the years. As argued earlier in this column, the imbroglio reflects systemic failures within the department and wider governance shortcomings, compounded by procedural lapses and questionable decisions in addressing a structural problem through temporary arrangements. This effectively pitted one of the State’s most educated cohorts against one another, when the issue was never a contest between serving teachers and aspiring candidates. Unfortunately, both sides have been squeezed by bureaucratic inertia and administrative expediency.
The Court’s observations on the State’s apparent “pick-and-choose” approach to the UGC framework are particularly significant, succinctly observing that the State seemed to have taken cognisance only of the “first sentence” of Regulation 13.1, while failing to take note of its remaining conditions. While insisting on the teacher-student ratio prescribed under UGC regulations, the State overlooked other equally binding provisions, including the 10% ceiling on contractual appointments, eligibility criteria and remuneration.
Placing students at the centre of the issue, the Court expressed concern that non-observance of UGC regulations could lead to consequences including disaffiliation and implications for grants and funding, potentially becoming a “doomsday for the students” and compromising the quality of higher education.
Most importantly, the Court’s averment that the teacher-student ratio “is not for the purpose of numerical equation” but for providing “good quality higher education” should be the central takeaway for policymakers.
Regardless of the direction to create regular posts and fill vacancies through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC), while ensuring compliance with regulatory norms, the Government must now look beyond the immediate legal dispute. The issue is fundamentally one of accountability, transparency and equal opportunity and, ultimately, of whether higher education is being accorded the policy seriousness it deserves.
Where financial exigency genuinely necessitates contractual appointments, they should be open, fair, time-bound and transparent, and strictly compliant with standing regulations, rather than becoming a recurring substitute for regular recruitment. The proceedings also make a workforce audit of government colleges imperative, followed by creation of required regular posts and a predictable schedule for referring vacancies to the NPSC.
Another question deserves equal attention: what is the basis for establishing new institutions when newly established institutions struggle with enrolment, as seen in some model colleges and polytechnics? The State must examine whether expansion is guided by demonstrated educational needs, or whether political and administrative exigencies sometimes take precedence. Demand, viability and long-term sustainability cannot be secondary considerations.
The High Court judgment should therefore be treated as a point of departure, not merely an order to be complied with. The objective should be a higher education system in which colleges have the faculty they genuinely require, qualified candidates have a fair opportunity to compete, and students receive stable and quality education.
For any feedback, drop a line to [email protected]
