Revised Ordinance on University Professor Recruitment Sparks Fresh Debate in Maharashtra
Pune, 12th February 2026: The Maharashtra government has unveiled a revised ordinance for the recruitment of regular professors in state-run public universities, introducing a quantified evaluation model aimed at enhancing transparency and standardisation in faculty appointments. However, even before full implementation, the policy has begun to generate debate within academic circles.
The updated framework divides the selection process into three major components: 60 marks for academic and research credentials, 20 marks for assessment of teaching skills, and 20 marks for performance in the personal interview. The move follows directions from the Governor’s office to bring uniformity to recruitment procedures across universities. The Higher Education Department revised the earlier draft after receiving objections from various education stakeholders.
Under the new structure, educational qualifications such as PhD and MPhil degrees will carry a combined weightage of up to 17 marks. Separate marks have been earmarked for eligibility qualifications, including NET-JRF, NET, and SET. Notably, teaching experience acquired on an hourly or contractual basis will now be considered valid, a provision expected to benefit a large number of temporary and guest faculty members.
The ordinance also introduces merit-based scoring linked to candidates’ academic performance at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, with higher percentages translating into additional marks during evaluation.
However, the most debated provision relates to institutional rankings. The revised rules grant extra marks to candidates who have graduated from universities that rank prominently in national assessments such as the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF). Similar recognition is extended to institutions appearing in QS and other global ranking systems.
This clause has drawn criticism from several academicians, who argue that a candidate’s competence should not be influenced by the fluctuating ranking status of the institution they attended. Detractors contend that capable scholars from non-ranked or lower-ranked universities may be placed at a disadvantage despite strong individual merit.
While state authorities insist that the revised policy seeks to introduce objective and measurable standards into the recruitment process, education experts believe the ranking-based weightage could invite further objections, and potentially legal scrutiny, in the near future.
As universities prepare to adopt the new framework, the debate underscores the broader challenge of balancing merit, equity, and institutional benchmarking in higher education appointments.
