Dear all ASAK,
A word of apology for not posting these earlier: We had believed that we can keep the differences in perception between the new VC and ourselves on certain issues to be sorted out within the University system, as making them public sometimes leads to misconceptions and unnecessary kite flying on possible motives by quite well meaning people who are not in Aligarh. However, the first stone was cast by persons who should have known better and a few prickly comments emerged, the AMUTA kept quiet as the AMU as an institution is much above scoring of debating points. Despite this, recent events have exhibited some alarming patterns that need to be studied and addressed properly; there is apparently an extra constitutional/extra statutory influence at work in important offices that is especially concerned with putting teachers in their places or showing them their auqat . The first step to counter this trend has to be to place our resolutions before the AMU community and try to explain our concerns, as well as our apprehensions and why they matter and, why they should be taken seriously.
Mustafa Zaidi
MUSLIM UNIVERSITY TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION, ALIGARH
S. Mustafa Zaidi
Hony. Secretary
|
Teaching Staff Club, AMU, Aligarh, 202002
(O); (R); (M)
Email: secretaryamuta@gmail.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/
|
October 3, 2012
Unanimous resolutions passed by the General Body of AMU Teachers’ Association in its emergent meeting held on October 3, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. at the Staff Club.
1. This emergent meeting of the General Body of AMU Teachers’ Association considered the circular regarding work load of teachers viz. two periods to be set aside everyday by each teacher for interaction with the students and the sharing of periods between teachers. It was pointed out that teachers are always ready to accommodate student-teacher consultation as per the 40 hours’ work week prescribed by UGC and even beyond; however it should not be forced upon teachers but should be voluntary and suggestive. It may also be noted that this notification impinges on the jurisdiction of the Board of Studies. It was therefore resolved that although almost all teachers have made provisions for the same, it is still an imposed time table that is being resented in general and should be withdrawn. The University administration should also follow the UGC guidelines in letter and spirit regarding provision of basic space and infrastructure facilities for individual teachers that should at least be at par with administrative staff. The time suggested for interaction should be realistic by taking into account that many teachers are already involved in engaging 24-25 periods/week where this shall add another 12, what happens then to the UGC recommended 40 hour work week and its suggested distribution. If this is not properly taken care of, very soon the implementation of students teacher interaction daily for two hours shall become a dream again. Regarding sharing of periods it was resolved that Lab./Project/Seminar classes are assigned as per UGC/AICTE /MCI norms that include optimum class size per teacher and therefore are in order.
2. The Office Memo regarding asset declaration was discussed and it was resolved that teachers have no ethical or moral problems for its implementation however the original notification No. C.13011/70/2006-Vig. Dated 29.11.2006 by the Vigilance Secretary, MHRD was only for “Group-A & B officers occupying sensitive posts dealing with administrative and financial matters”. The inclusion of faculty is an afterthought of 1st August, 2012, it needs to be seen whether this exercise shall yield the intended results. It was pointed out that till date we are not recognized as Government servants nor are we given the privileges of Government servants such as exemption from income tax of pensionary benefits, or of privileges available as a matter of right to government servants.
It was resolved that Central Civil Service(CCS) rules cannot be implemented in Universities as our service conditions are different, for example, we can publicly criticize and express dissent with policies of the Government and are permitted to join/contest elections without resigning from our service. Moreover no ordinary teacher occupies a sensitive administrative or financial post as mentioned in the original Office Memo. Officers of the University are defined in the University Statutes where only one category is from teachers, thus, this whole exercise may be an exercise in futility.
Additionally, there seems to be no urgency for use of Section 19(3) of the University Act, the Academic Council and the Executive Council should have been allowed to take a decision in normal course. Therefore, we resolve to request that the Office Memo of the MHRD may be sent for legal opinion in so far as it concerns “faculty” before being brought before the University authorities, i.e., the Academic Council and Executive Council that may reject it, therefore, pending their rejection or approval the deadline may be suitably extended.
We condemn the letter of MHRD dated August 01, 2012 (the fourth in the series) that adds ‘faculty’. The General Body authorizes the Executive Committee of AMUTA to take up the matter with the MHRD in collaboration with FEDCUTA and press for its withdrawal, as this seems to be an attempt at curbing our freedom of expression through implementing CCS rule 18 as an anti-corruption measure to ultimately extend CCS rules to stop free speech on campuses.
3. We express satisfaction that the long pending issue of merger of EL/DL for teachers is being brought before the Academic Council in its next meeting and hope that at long last this shall be implemented w.e.f. the due date, i.e., from the date of the V Pay Commission.
4. We again request that a meeting for extending benefits under Statute 61(3)k should be held soon so that teachers get their due benefits without any further delay.
(S. Mustafa Zaidi)
No comments:
Post a Comment