In its draft WBNUJS Service Rules 2016, NUJS Kolkata has been seeking to restrict its faculty and staff from certain kinds of marriage, trade and business, association, engagement with the press and access to courts.
The set of 78 rules was circulated in draft form to the faculty inviting comments in early August.
NUJS vice chancellor Prof Ishwara Bhat did not respond to an email seeking comment on whether the rules were in force. An NUJS faculty member also did not respond to an emailed request for comment since Friday.
Some provisions in these service rules purport to apply directly to employees’ family members as well.
We could not confirm at the time of publication if any amendments have been made to these rules or if they have been passed.
No ‘adverse criticism’ in ‘any public utterance’ of ‘any university policy’
Rule 42(4): No employee shall, in any radio broadcast, telecast through any electronic media or in any document published in his own name or anonymously, pseudonymously or in the name of any other person or in any communication to the press or in any public utterance, make any statement of fact or opinion which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the University
(emphasis added).
Ban on any blogging without permission
This is preceded by the following general restrictions, in Rule 42, on being involved in running any online media, which could presumably include blogs, and conceivably also restrict publications on Facebook, Linked-in, Medium and other sites:
(1) No employee shall, except with the previous sanction of the University, own wholly or in part, or conduct or participate in the editing or management of any newspaper or periodical publication or electronic media.
Ban on letter writing or comment in media without permission (except if art or science)
The second part of Rule 42, restricts engagement with the press:
(2) No employee shall, except with the previous sanction of the University, or the prescribed authority or in the bonafide discharge of his duties, participate in a radio broadcast/electronic media or contribute any article or write any letter or a book either in his own name or anonymously, pseudonymously or in the name of any newspaper or periodical
However, the proviso excepts “literary, artistic and scientific” publications and broadcasts by the employees, from this restriction.
Restriction on seeking ‘vindication’ through press or courts
If there has been any act by the university that has (cryptically) been “the subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of a defamatory character”, then permission needs to be sought before taking recourse to “any court or to the press” for “vindication”.
However, there is a carve out – if the college ignores the request for three months (or possibly – and this is not entirely clear - even if it denies the request?), the employee can go ahead and seek vindication through the press:
Rule 52(1): No employee shall except with the previous sanction of the University, have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism or an attack of a defamatory character. Provided that if no such sanction is received by the employee within a period of three months from the date of receipt of his request by the University, he shall be free to assume that the permission as sought for has been granted to him.
Prevent family members’ activities ‘subversive’ to the university or Government (and/or spy on them)
Faculty are expected under the draft rules to act as spies on any family members who are subversive of the Government or the University. What exactly counts as subversion, is not clear in this context:
Rule 40(3): It shall be the duty of every employee to prevent any member of his family from taking part in, subscribing in aid of, or assisting in any other manner any movement or activity which is, or tends directly or indirectly to be, subversive of the Government or the University as by law established and where an employee is unable to prevent a member of his family from taking part in, or subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner, any such movement or activity, he shall make a report to that effect to the University.
Must report if any family member involved in a trade?
Or, possibly depending on preferred reading, maybe this provision applies only to those involved in the insurance trade?
Rule 47(3): Every employee shall report to the University if any member of his family is engaged in a trade or business or owns or manages an insurance agency or commission agency.
No bigamy, restrictions on polygamy and please notify if marrying a foreign, ok?
The vice chancellor must grant approval before anyone can enter into a legal and polygamous marriage, while those marrying foreigners have to let the university know about it.
Rule 54: (1) No employee shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and
(2) No employee having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person:
Provided that the Vice-Chancellor may permit an employee to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in Clause (1) or Clause (2), if he is satisfied that
(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such employee and the other party to the marriage; and
(b) there are other grounds for so doing.
(3) An employee who has married or marries a person other than of Indian nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the University.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
(...), (...) and (...) are the responsible persons for doing all these non-sense things to NUJS during Bhat's regime. Whoever is supporting them may not be in a position to know about their involvement in all matters be in administrative and financial. Blaming only the VC for these acts is not a post-modern thinking, we should think about these three clowns and their involvement in all matters during all the previous VCs' of NUJS.
VCs' will come and go, but cancers like these three clowns will try to destroy the platelets of Justice always.
If you don't believe, just make an RTI application that how much honorarium these three clowns have earned from NUJS for the last five years apart from their Net Salary. Compare the amount with other full time permanent faculties.
1. The petition seeking Bhat's ouster (signed by over 400 students and alumni) should be revived and submitted to the CJI. www.change.org/p/chief-justice-of-india-to-seek-urgent-intervention-against
2. The SJA must pressure the media to follow up this story. They must also inform the EC.
3. The SJA must make an outreach effort to get alumni from senior batches involved. Maybe people can be invited for seminars and talks. The early alumni are well established. Some have even joined teaching (at NLUD, jindal etc).
4. Remember guys, Bhat was a CPM appointee backed by Justice Ganguly --- mortal enemies of Mamata didi. Just remind the state government of this, and they will hound him out
This is what one of the most respected NUJS teachers wrote on facebook:
"A consultant hired by the University prepared a Draft Service Rules, that is just an incoherent khichdee of provisions plagiarised from several govt services rules, dating back to 1950s.
The very first meeting of the Sub-committee formed to finalise the Rules rejected this draft and has started the process afresh.
The V-C should have simply set the record clear on this silly non-issue."
Seriously guys.....
Agree with you, the VC should have set the record straight. But we gave him opportunity to do so for 2 days via email. We also emailed the faculty member who had circulated the draft for discussion before that. We will happily publish any comments received.
But the story here, either way, is why such a draft would get produced and circulated at one of the oldest national law schools in the first place? I'd love to get some answers on that.
After a draft has been prepared, no matter how draconian or plagiarised it is, it has to be circulated. That does not really reflect on the University. It only reflects on the drafter and maybe the VC. The more important consideration is not the fact that the draft was circulated but the fact that it was rejected at once in the Sub-committee meeting.
At any point I am not defending the VC. He is highly incompetent and everybody knows that.
Some other issues though with your idea.
1. It means that by stonewalling or not commenting, an administration can delay or suppress coverage of something, until the news value is lost.
2. What is irresponsible about this report? The draft was prepared for/by the university and was circulated. The fact that this draft even went out was news.
If it was rejected outright by a sub-committee, which we have not yet been able to authoritatively confirm from our sources, then it's just another piece of the puzzle, and our headline would have read: "Teachers reject hilariously draconian NUJS rules".
The rules are ridiculous either way and that is something that really should be written about.
You could have atleast tried a couple of professor more and office bearers of the student body. Nobody is asking you to publish after 10 days but 2 days means that you are just in a hurry.
This is what is irresponsible.
The draft was prepared for the University . Some times we pick up wrong people to do jobs for us.
And now that you know this you can confirm rejection from the faculty. Atleast a couple of them have already posted on FB along with sharing this LI article.
Then maybe you can update the report. Also please continue reporting on such matters. It is something which surely should be written about but that can be done a bit more responsibily.
A real journalist would have queried the university and obtained (using RTI if need be) the relevant service rules AND THEN commented if they were badly framed.
But your approach is to rely on gossipmongers and rumour-hunters and you really dont have the staff or the inclination to do any real field work. So based on some anonymous "tip" you write up this eyeball-grabbing story about a set of DRAFT rules which are far from being in force. For all you know that draft is a hoax or the content is deliberately changed to attract attention.
I'm no fan of the VC (Bhat) but this is a silly way to point a finger at him or NUJS. Giving him a ridiculous period of 2 days to reply and presuming it to be true because he did not do so is equally pathetic.
Its this kind of practice that prevents LI from being taken seriously. How can you expect BCI or anyone else to take you seriously if this is what you do.
1. In this online age, we publish when we have news, and this draft report is news. If it's not the entire story, which it never is, we publish a follow-up with more details. The other alternative is to take 3 months time for an investigation, file RTIs, get them rejected or stonewalled, appeal, etc and let the story lose steam until no one has an interest in it anymore and the admin has successfully buried it.
Two days time to reply should be plenty for any VC.
2. The Indian Express saw fit to rip off most of our story for the frontpage today, apparently (which is nice, though they could have given us a hat-tip at least :)
indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/wbnujs-service-rules-employee-relatives-cannot-take-part-in-subversive-government-re-marriage-ban-3033624/
3. The VC has actually commented to the Express in that story:
Quote: So, it seems fairly obviously that the draft is not a hoax and the content has not been deliberately changed to attract attention (which we, of course, knew already).
We were upfront in the story that we were not aware of the current status of the draft and whether it was passed, or has been amended.
The story is that an NLU would think it a good idea to produce and circulate such nonsense in the first place.
Run a story on his maladministration and incompetency and why he does not deserve any extension.
Earn some good will. But if it is only controversy that you want, you will get that too from this story.
Let the forgotten-lovers of NUJS VC to leak again who this consultant is? how is he appointed for this work? how much he took as honorarium? whether any action has been initiated against this consultant for this plagiarized draconian draft?
Now these forgotten-lovers need a new VC for NUJS, so lets see and wait for some more time to find out the Horcruxes.
I wish I could share the Facebook chat between Shamnad Sir and a certain SJA office bearer where Shamnad Sir reprimanded him for defending the VC.
Your comment reeks of prejudice.
God bless!
Also, the report says that Indian Express broke the story. Is this correct? Then you should not take credit and instead give credit to Indian Express.
indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/nujs-faculty-members-react-to-law-schools-draft-service-rules-3034757/
indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/wbnujs-service-rules-employee-relatives-cannot-take-part-in-subversive-government-re-marriage-ban-3033624/
Aw well...
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first