Tathagata Choudhuri, the head of the biotechnology department at Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan, has openly refused to implement a new monthly workload reporting system for teachers in his department. In a letter addressed to the university registrar, Choudhuri criticized the policy, questioning its legal foundation and describing it as an unnecessary surveillance measure that reduces department heads to mere "chowkidar cum gatekeepers." He also warned that the faculty association and other staff members might legally challenge the order if it is not withdrawn.
Understanding the New Workload Reporting Policy
On August 7, Visva-Bharati University issued a notification requiring all department heads to submit monthly reports detailing the workload of their faculty members. The university cited the University Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines from 2018 as the basis for this directive. The stated goal was to address concerns about some teachers allegedly being late or taking leave without proper approval. Alongside this, the university introduced biometric attendance for all staff.
The Visva Bharati University Faculty Association (VBUFA) has criticized these measures as overly authoritarian, labeling them "Tughlaki"—a term used in India to describe arbitrary or heavy-handed administrative decisions.
Key Points of Contention Raised by the Department Head
- Choudhuri argues that the policy unfairly targets all faculty members when only a few face punctuality or attendance issues.
- He states that the UGC guidelines do not mandate teachers to maintain detailed daily workload records nor require department heads to submit such reports.
- The letter highlights the absence of any provision in Ministry of Education documents or the Visva-Bharati Act that supports this kind of monthly workload reporting.
- The policy grants department heads the discretion to record both positive and negative remarks about faculty without ensuring those remarks are communicated to the concerned individuals, which Choudhuri says violates principles of natural justice.
- He also notes reports of faculty being pressured to fill out workload forms, despite the order not explicitly requiring teachers to submit these to their heads.
Implications for Department Heads and Faculty
Choudhuri expressed concern about the practicality and fairness of the new system. He questioned whether department heads can realistically monitor every faculty member’s arrival, departure, and daily academic and administrative activities. He described the role as turning heads of departments into "chowkidar cum gatekeepers," implying a shift from academic leadership to surveillance duties.
This monitoring could detract from their core responsibilities such as teaching, research, and mentoring students. Choudhuri even suggested that to comply fully, he would have to station himself at the department entrance throughout office hours to track attendance.
The biotechnology head warned that if the university does not withdraw the order, the teachers’ association and faculty members may pursue legal action. He cautioned that department heads who enforce the policy could be named in any court case alongside the university administration.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why is the biotechnology department head opposing the workload report system?
A: Tathagata Choudhuri believes the system lacks legal backing, unfairly targets all faculty, and imposes excessive monitoring that distracts from academic duties.
Q: What reasons did the university give for introducing the monthly workload reports?
A: The university cited UGC guidelines and concerns about some teachers being late or taking leave without proper approval as reasons for the new reporting system.
Q: Could this dispute lead to legal action?
A: Yes, the faculty association and other members may challenge the order in court if it is not withdrawn, potentially involving department heads who enforce it.
