'Unacceptable, undesirable,' SC on NLU run by contractual teaching staff

The Supreme Court has expressed shock and surprise after being informed the National Law University, Jodhpur, supposed to be an institute of excellence, is managed by contractual teaching staff only.

The top court was also appalled to note the institute does not have a Vice Chancellor at present while the Registrar is also contractual.

Finding 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."

Hearing a matter arising from the Rajasthan High Court's 2019 judgement on appointment of contractual teachers, the bench said, "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 court was informed that there have been some amendment to the regulations which provide for 50 per cent permanent staff and 50 per cent contractual. 

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

Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta on behalf of the institute informed the court 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. 

Advocate Rishabh Sancheti and other counsel on behalf of respondent teachers defended the High Court's ruling, 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".

The court put the matter for passing directions on October 31, 2023.