“Employees posted in C-zone have remained there for several years, despite the prescribed tenure being two years”
K Koushal
The Higher Education Department’s much-publicised Annual Transfer Drive has come under a cloud, with disgruntled employees alleging that the latest transfer list does not adhere to the department’s own zoning and tenure norms.
Talking to The Typewriter, employees unhappy with the transfer list stated that under the Annual Transfer Drive, colleges were categorised into A, B, C and D zones, with prescribed tenures of four years, three years, two years and one year, respectively.
“The objective behind framing this policy was moderation in the transfer and to ensure rational rotation of teaching staff and prevent prolonged stays at particular stations,” said senior faculty members, wishing not to be named.
However, he alleged that the latest transfer exercise has failed to follow these principles uniformly.
He said some lecturers have allegedly been transferred from one A-zone institution to another A-zone institution, despite not completing their prescribed tenure.
“An employee was reportedly transferred from M.A. M. College to Sidra College around eight to ten months ago, but has now allegedly been transferred back to M.A.M. College,” asserted faculty members.
He added that similarly, another employee was reportedly transferred from Udhampur to Neelinala and has now allegedly been transferred back to Udhampur.
Other professors questioned why such transfers were made between institutions falling within the same zone when the stated purpose of the policy is zonal rotation.
The controversy becomes more serious in the case of employees who have allegedly completed or exceeded their prescribed tenure.
Employees claimed that teachers of Dogri subject have been continuing at certain stations for around four years and four months, including institutions where, according to the allegations, there are no students studying Dogri.
“If the prescribed tenure for the concerned zone is four years, such continuation amounts to an overstay and defeats the very purpose of the transfer policy,” they said.
There are also allegations that employees posted in C-zone institutions have remained there for around several years, despite the prescribed tenure allegedly being two years.
Employees questioning the exercise argued that they have effectively remained at such stations for an additional two years and four months, despite repeatedly raising the issue with the authorities.
They also alleged transfer of some employees who were still on probation to places close to their hometowns is also questionable.
Employees questioning the list argued that such postings require particular scrutiny because the Annual Transfer Drive is supposed to operate on transparent and objective criteria rather than individual convenience.
They alleged that while some employees have been struggling with prolonged postings away from their homes, certain probationers have allegedly received postings relatively close to their native places.
Employees alleged that political recommendations and influence played a role in determining certain postings, particularly where employees who had not completed their prescribed tenure, or were still on probation, allegedly received favourable stations.
The controversy has also been linked to the appointment of eight contractual Assistant Professors in Dogri in Jammu city.
According to the allegations, while permanent Dogri faculty members continue at certain stations despite alleged overstays, contractual teachers have simultaneously been engaged in Jammu city.
Employees stated that this could result in the government bearing expenditure on both permanent and contractual faculty in the same subject, despite repeated representations seeking rationalisation of postings.
“If the Annual Transfer Drive is based on clearly defined A, B, C and D zones and corresponding tenure periods, why are these criteria allegedly not being applied uniformly?” Questioned employees, adding that a transfer policy can ensure fairness only when the same rules are applied to everyone.
Transfers of employees who have allegedly not completed their prescribed tenure, including transfers within the same zone, while employees who have allegedly overstayed remain at their existing stations, have created considerable resentment.
The alleged favourable postings of some probationers and claims of political influence have further intensified concerns over the credibility of the exercise.
Employees say they have submitted multiple representations to the department seeking correction of what they describe as anomalies in the transfer list. They now want the Higher Education Department to disclose the criteria, zone-wise tenure details and basis on which individual transfers were approved.
