India’s commitment to social justice, enshrined in the Constitution, mandates equitable representation to marginalised communities in public institutions. Reservation policies for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) aim to address historical inequalities with a quota of 15%, 7.5%, 27%, and 10% of posts, respectively. Yet, central universities and premier institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology, the Indian Institutes of Management and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences consistently fail to fill reserved faculty positions, shifting the focus to this constitutional mandate. Importantly, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led political dispensation has often promised to abide by the agenda of social justice to make India’s institutions more inclusive and democratic. In this case, what are the systemic barriers that prevent these institutions from enabling inclusive representation?
A persistent gap
In data presented by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan in the Lok Sabha in April 2021, there were significant vacancies in reserved faculty posts across 45 central universities: 2,389 for SCs, 1,199 for STs, and 4,251 for OBCs. More recent reports suggest that while some progress has been made with a special drive for recruitment in certain universities (Jawaharlal Nehru University and University of Delhi), the gap persists. A University Grants Commission (UGC) report (2023) indicated that nearly 30% of reserved teaching posts in central universities remain unfilled, particularly at senior levels such as associate professor and professor.
This shortfall is in contrast to other public sectors (railways and banks), where reserved posts at the lower levels (Group C and D) are often filled. However, senior positions of power and privileges are still out of reach for marginalised social groups. In academia too, the senior positions (vice chancellors, directors, principals and professors) have been dominated by unreserved categories, highlighting a structural disparity in higher education.
Systemic barriers
Several factors contribute to the non-fulfilment of reserved faculty posts. First, central universities and institutes of national importance operate with significant autonomy, sometimes insulating them from governmental oversight. While the UGC mandates adherence to reservation policies, enforcement varies. Vice-Chancellors and selection committees, often drawn from dominant social groups, show a lack of urgency or accountability to prioritise the social justice agenda.
Second, the UGC’s shift in 2018 to the “13-point roster system” for faculty recruitment has been contentious. Unlike the earlier 200-point system, which treated the entire institution as a unit for calculating reservations, the new system considers individual departments as units. In smaller departments with limited posts (for example, six faculty positions), only one post may be reserved for OBCs, and none for STs until 14 posts are created. This has significantly reduced the number of reserved positions, particularly for STs, prompting legal challenges and protests.
Third, allegations of bias in the selection process persist. Qualified candidates from marginalised communities often face rejection under vague criteria such as “candidate not found suitable”. Such practices can discourage talented academics from SC, ST, and OBC backgrounds from pursuing university careers, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion. A study by the Ambedkar University Faculty Association in 2022 highlighted that over 60% of reserved post vacancies in central universities were attributed to such discretionary rejections.
Finally, institutional practices sometimes undermine fairness. Reports of biased appointments influenced by political affiliations or ideological alignment raise concerns about transparency. Though successive governments, both Congress and BJP, have championed social justice, the gap between policy rhetoric and implementation remains wide.
Addressing the challenge
Filling reserved faculty posts requires a multi-pronged approach. First, stricter enforcement of UGC guidelines is essential, supplementing the values of social justice. Regular audits and public reporting of reservation compliance could hold institutions accountable. Second, revisiting the 13-point roster system to ensure that it aligns with constitutional mandates is critical. Hearings by the Supreme Court of India, that are ongoing on this issue, may provide clarity.
Third, universities must address biases in recruitment by enabling diversity in selection committees and standardising evaluation criteria. Training programmes to sensitise academic leaders to social justice principles could foster inclusivity. Finally, it requires proactive outreach and political enforcement. Social justice should not remain a mere political slogan. The ruling class must ensure its effective implementation in every institution.
The persistent vacancy of reserved faculty posts undermines India’s vision of an inclusive education system. Universities are not merely centres of learning but also spaces for social transformation. Ensuring equitable representation in faculty positions is not just a legal obligation but also a moral imperative to reflect India’s diverse society.
As the National Education Policy 2020 emphasises multidisciplinary and inclusive education, central universities must align their recruitment practices with the goals of ensuring more faculty members from the marginalised social groups. Only concerted action that combines substantive policy reform, greater institutional accountability towards social justice and political vision of the ruling class to make public institutions more inclusive can bridge the gap between the social justice mandate and the current hesitation of the academic institutions towards it.
Harish S. Wankhede is Assistant Professor, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Published – July 02, 2025 12:08 am IST
