I see a lot of people with both of those designations, especially in JGLS. Don't BCI rules disallow an advocate from being under a full-time employment of any kind?
Jindal hardly follows any rules. They have Asst Professors without NET or PhD, and directly hired after LLM. Why, even some Associate Professors and Professors don't have PhDs (I'm not fudging this, check out the faculty educational profiles). On top of this, many of the Associate Professors clearly lack the 7+ years requirement and many Professors lack the minimum 10+ years requirement. So Jindal not following rules is no surprise, that's just how they swing.
Jindal is an Institution of Eminence and has NAAC A+ accredition. Put simply, it can choose to employ Lecturers or Assistant Professor+ faculty members who have neither completed a PhD nor cleared NET. Consequently, your insinuation that Jindal does not follow rules because "that's just how they swing" is baseless. - JGU Faculty+Alumna
There is no rule that says that an IoE can defy UGC minimum standards for appointment, by the way. And any faculty number who writes a comment with the handle that you have chosen makes it clear why it shouldn't do so either.
OP of 2. It's funny how criticism of an institution = hating the institution. I'm a Jindal alum and faculty too. Just the label "IOE" doesn't imply that the institution is good in all aspects. You can pump scopex-paranoid research agendas, but speak to your seniors (especially from the first three to five batches) and you will hear how poor the quality of teachers and pedagogy has become over the years. But hey, who cares, IOE is all that matters!
LOL, jobless Jindal haters strike again! Please note the following:
1. As an IOE Jindal has special autonomy 2. It is not cast in stone that professor mist have a PhD or X years experience. Look at the appointments made by MP Singh at NUJS and now by Sudhir at NLSIU.
See Rule 51 of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules:
"51. An advocate may review Parliamentary Bills for a remuneration, edit legal text books at a salary, do press-vetting for newspapers, coach pupils for legal examination, set and examine question papers; and subject to the rules against advertising and full-time employment, engage in broadcasting, journalism, lecturing and teaching subjects, both legal and non-legal."
Under 51 you're allowed to lecture as long as it's not full time. Not sure what the terms are at Jindal. But if they are on retainer contracts and not employment contracts, and these contracts allow them to go on with regular practice, I don't see the issue.
MP Singh ensured that only quality people would have been recruited, and he made only one exception for Sudhir (Shamnad was a chair professor and the rules for that were different). Jindal cannot make that claim.
It's not just Jindal which has to follow minimum eligibility conditions to be appointed as academician as prescribed by UGC. The IOE regulations make it absolutely clear. Please read from the above link. The problem is, who is enforcing them? BCI for sure is more interested in collecting it's fee rather than do the real inspection.
"11.0 additional incentives -........ In particular, such Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities shall be exempt from all UGC Regulations and other guidelines, notifications and orders of the commission on matters pertaining to the subject areas laid down in Regulations 11.1 to 11.6 of these Regulations...
11.3.2 The Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University shall have complete autonomy in the appointment of faculty, promotions etc including the autonomy to offer them emoluments and perks commensurate with their standing as it deems fit."
I might be misreading this, but does the act not say IOE's have complete autonomy with respect to faculty appointment and that they are exempt from all other UGC regulations?
I wonder why no one has mentioned The Advocates (Right to Take up Law Teaching) Rules, 1979 yet.
Subject to certain restrictions, you are allowed to teach law in a uni and be an advocate. And frankly, it's better to have law taught by someone who knows the practical side of it. A lot of (now senior) advocates have taught at TLCs while practicing in their early days.
1. As an IOE Jindal has special autonomy
2. It is not cast in stone that professor mist have a PhD or X years experience. Look at the appointments made by MP Singh at NUJS and now by Sudhir at NLSIU.
Someone please answer the original question.
How do these two professions reconcile under the BCI rules?
"51. An advocate may review Parliamentary Bills for a remuneration, edit legal text books at a salary, do press-vetting for newspapers, coach pupils for legal examination, set and examine question papers; and subject to the rules against advertising and full-time employment, engage in broadcasting, journalism, lecturing and teaching subjects, both legal and non-legal."
Under 51 you're allowed to lecture as long as it's not full time. Not sure what the terms are at Jindal. But if they are on retainer contracts and not employment contracts, and these contracts allow them to go on with regular practice, I don't see the issue.
It's not just Jindal which has to follow minimum eligibility conditions to be appointed as academician as prescribed by UGC. The IOE regulations make it absolutely clear. Please read from the above link. The problem is, who is enforcing them? BCI for sure is more interested in collecting it's fee rather than do the real inspection.
11.3.2 The Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University shall have complete autonomy in the
appointment of faculty, promotions etc including the autonomy to offer them emoluments and perks
commensurate with their standing as it deems fit."
I might be misreading this, but does the act not say IOE's have complete autonomy with respect to faculty appointment and that they are exempt from all other UGC regulations?
I wonder why no one has mentioned The Advocates (Right to Take up Law Teaching) Rules, 1979 yet.
Subject to certain restrictions, you are allowed to teach law in a uni and be an advocate. And frankly, it's better to have law taught by someone who knows the practical side of it. A lot of (now senior) advocates have taught at TLCs while practicing in their early days.