The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has issued a stern directive to Nagpur University, demanding a fresh and comprehensive response regarding the chronic shortage of permanent teaching staff at Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Law College. The court specifically questioned why numerous sanctioned professorial positions remain vacant, undermining the institution's educational standards.
Court Expresses Dissatisfaction with Vague Submissions
The directions were issued during a hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by petitioner Ashok Karandikar. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas was visibly displeased with the oral information previously provided by the university. The judges ordered the university to place comprehensive and precise data on the official record. Advocate Sandeep Tiwari represented the petitioner in the case.
In earlier proceedings, the court had highlighted the serious consequences of such faculty shortages. The bench observed that the lack of adequate full-time teachers directly compromises the quality of legal education imparted to students. The judges had pointedly remarked, "Without quality teaching, it is difficult to understand how students from these colleges can compete with those from National Law Universities."
Sharp Scrutiny Over Filling Sanctioned Posts
Acting on these concerns, the court had previously issued notices to both Nagpur University and Amravati University. They were directed to submit detailed figures on regular professors, contractual faculty, and student enrollment across law colleges in the Vidarbha region. The universities' initial submissions were found lacking, prompting the court to order a clearer and more detailed written reply.
According to oral statements made by Nagpur University in court, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Law College has 16 sanctioned posts for professors. However, a mere six regular faculty members are currently employed for undergraduate and diploma courses. The remaining teaching workload is reportedly managed through temporary contractual appointments.
The university also informed the bench that permission had been sought from the state government to fill the vacant permanent positions. This explanation, however, drew sharp scrutiny from the judges. They questioned the very logic of seeking government approval for filling posts that are already sanctioned, noting that such approval is typically required for creating new positions, not for recruiting against existing permanent vacancies.
Next Steps and Broader Implications
The matter has been scheduled for a future hearing after Nagpur University and Amravati University submit the detailed written response as ordered. The court has mandated that this response include precise data on faculty strength and student numbers.
This case underscores a systemic issue affecting legal education in the region. The persistent reliance on contractual staff against permanent vacancies raises fundamental questions about institutional commitment, funding, and long-term planning for higher education. The High Court's intervention signals a push for accountability and transparency from the universities involved, with potential ramifications for other state-run colleges facing similar challenges.
