Several academics have expressed concern over the rules of the University Grants Commission (UGC) under which a PhD student has to change their supervisor irrespective of the progress of the thesis in case of the guide’s retirement.
The academics claim that such a practice has created a culture of denial of due credit to the main supervisor who puts enormous effort into guiding the scholar. They said the new supervisor gets greater credit with minimal contribution.
The UGC (Minimum Standard and Procedure for Award of PhD Degrees) Regulations 2022, which the central universities across the country have adopted in the last two years, debars faculty members with less than three years of service before superannuation to take new research scholars under their supervision.
“However, such faculty members can continue to supervise PhD scholars who are already registered until superannuation and a co-supervisor after superannuation, but not after attaining the age of 70 years,” the regulations said.
This rule sharply contrasts the norms followed by the IITs.
The PhD rules of IIT Madras say that “a faculty member who has guided a candidate for at least three years, will continue to be a guide post-retirement”.
According to IIT Bombay’s rules, if a PhD student completes 80 per cent of research under his supervisor, the latter continues to be the primary supervisor even after superannuation. If the supervisor retires before the viva, the co-supervisor will act as the supervisor for administrative purposes.
The IIT Kharagpur rules say that the superannuating supervisor will continue to be the sole guide if he has guided the candidate for two years or more and if the thesis is submitted within six months of retirement.
Rajeev Kumar, a retired professor of computer science at Jawaharlal Nehru University, said a faculty member invests a lot of time in mentoring a scholar apart from giving moral support. Denying credit to the faculty member citing superannuation is not
justified, he said.
“In India, the institutions follow practices of appointing supervisor, joint supervisor, co-supervisor and caretaker supervisor. When it comes to credit, the supervisor gets full recognition while the joint supervisor gets half credit. The co-supervisor and caretaker supervisor mean ad hoc arrangements. It is unfair for institutions to reduce the contributions of the main supervisor to a co-supervisor after the main work is done under him,” Kumar said.
Some state universities have modified the UGC rules while adopting them. For example, Abdul Kalam Technical University (AKTU) in Uttar Pradesh has the same provision with an additional condition that a supervisor substituted at a later date should be associated with the candidate’s research for at least two years before the submission of the thesis.
However, the central universities have adopted the rules as they are.
Seema Das, a professor of political science at Hindu College, and Pankaj Garg,
a professor of mathematics
at Rajdhani College, disapproved of the provision
that bars a retired faculty member from supervising
a PhD scholar.
“This is an anomaly. When the professor has made heavy contributions, she or he cannot be made co-supervisor because of some procedural requirement or completion of a minor portion of unfinished work,” Das said.
Garg said the postgraduate departments of economics and English do not allow the college’s faculty members to guide even as the UGC rules have no such restrictions.
An email was sent to UGC chairman Prof M. Jagadesh Kumar to understand the rationale behind barring faculty members from supervising even after retirement. His response is awaited.
