Context

• India’s constitutional commitment to social justice is more than a moral or ideological framework, it is a legal and ethical obligation aimed at correcting deep-rooted historical injustices.
• With quotas of 15%, 7.5%, 27%, and 10% respectively, these policies are particularly critical in higher education, where representation shapes not just access, but also the production and dissemination of knowledge.
• However, a persistent and troubling trend has emerged: premier institutions consistently fail to fill reserved faculty positions.
• This shortfall raises urgent questions about the systemic barriers thwarting India’s social justice agenda.

A Persistent Gap in Representation

• Despite the clear constitutional mandate, the data reveals an alarming shortfall.
• According to figures presented by Union Education Minister in April 2021, out of 45 central universities, there were 2,389 vacant SC faculty positions, 1,199 for STs, and 4,251 for OBCs.
• While targeted recruitment drives at institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the University of Delhi have made marginal progress, the broader picture remains bleak.
• The 2023 University Grants Commission (UGC) report confirmed that nearly 30% of reserved teaching posts remain unfilled, particularly at senior levels such as associate professor and professor.
• This deficit contrasts sharply with other public sectors, such as railways and banking, where reserved posts in lower-level jobs (Groups C and D) are routinely filled.

Systemic Barriers to Inclusion

• Institutional Autonomy and Accountability Gaps
  • Central universities and institutes of national importance operate with significant autonomy.
  • While the UGC mandates reservation compliance, enforcement is weak and inconsistent.
  • Selection committees and Vice-Chancellors, often composed of members from dominant social groups, exhibit insufficient urgency in advancing social justice goals.
  • The lack of oversight mechanisms allows these institutions to circumvent constitutional obligations with impunity.
• The 13-Point Roster System
  • The 2018 introduction of the 13-point roster system marked a significant regression.
  • Unlike the previous 200-point system that calculated reservations across the entire institution, the new system considers departments as individual units.
  • This change disproportionately affects smaller departments, which often do not reach the critical threshold for mandatory reserved posts, especially for STs and SCs.
  • Legal challenges and nationwide protests reflect the backlash this system has generated for undermining representation.
• Discretionary Rejection and Institutional Bias
  • A less visible but equally damaging barrier is the prevalence of discretionary rejections.
  • Candidates from SC, ST, and OBC backgrounds, even when qualified, are often denied positions on ambiguous grounds such as not found suitable.
  • According to a 2022 study by the Ambedkar University Faculty Association, over 60% of vacancies in reserved categories were attributed to such arbitrary assessments.
  • These practices develop a culture of exclusion and disillusionment, discouraging potential candidates from pursuing academic careers.

Recommendation of Policy and Practice Toward a More Inclusive Academia

• Strengthen Enforcement Mechanisms
  • UGC guidelines on reservation must be stringently enforced through regular audits and publicly accessible compliance reports.
  • Institutions should be held accountable for lapses in fulfilling reservation quotas, with penalties for non-compliance.
• Reform the Roster System
  • The 13-point roster must be revisited and restructured to align with the spirit of constitutional equality.
  • The Supreme Court’s ongoing hearings may offer legal clarity, but proactive legislative or regulatory amendments can pre-empt further delays and disruptions.
• Institutionalise Fair and Transparent Recruitment
  • Diversity in selection committees and clearly defined evaluation criteria can reduce subjective biases.
  • Moreover, training programmes for academic administrators on social justice principles can shift institutional culture toward greater inclusivity.
• Political Will and Ethical Commitment
  • Ultimately, bridging this gap requires genuine political commitment.
  • Social justice must move beyond rhetoric and be embedded as a core value in policy implementation.
  • The ruling establishment that often frames itself as a proponent of inclusive nationalism, must demonstrate through action its commitment to pluralism and equity in higher education.

Conclusion

• The chronic underrepresentation of marginalised communities in university faculties is not just a policy failure, it is a moral and democratic crisis.
• Universities are not mere centres of professional training but are spaces of social transformation.
• They must reflect the diversity of the society they serve, and their governance must be informed by the principles of justice, equity, and inclusion.
• Only through decisive reform, greater institutional accountability, and visionary leadership can India hope to realise its foundational promise of social justice and build a truly inclusive knowledge society.