Editor,
As a media educator in Arunachal Pradesh, I encourage my students every day to question unfair policies, challenge double standards, and speak up for accountability. Today, I find myself doing exactly that.
I am writing to express my concern over the recent Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) notification dated June 30, 2026, regarding the Assistant Professor Examination (APE)-2026 (Notification No. PSC-R(B)/01/2025). While the notification seeks to clarify the allocation of teaching experience marks under Appendix II, Table 3B of the UGC Regulations, 2018, its implementation creates an unfortunate distinction that undervalues the contributions of teachers serving in recognised private colleges. Where UGC regulation table 3B awards marks for, “Teaching Experience” without restricting it to government colleges. APPSC’s current indifference based on payment of staff that doesn’t fall under UGC pay grade, but the loophole collapses as DCDC (Dean, College Development Council) countersigns our documents as “Verified per RGU records.” We had other engagement by the state in the recent times, I was appointed by the government of Arunachal Pradesh, office of the DC, Lower Subansiri as Assistant Centre Superintendent twice for APSSB examination 10th November 2024 and 16th September 2025, was also part of the examination in 2023 as an invigilator which verifies my contribution to the service of the state. We, teachers of private colleges has contributed equally or more for the state in some matters.
The Rajiv Gandhi University Act, 2006, also supports this position. It recognises affiliated colleges as institutions admitted to the privileges of the University and provides that the qualifications, appointment, and service conditions of academic staff are governed through the University’s ordinances.
The notification grants experience marks to Guest Faculty serving in government colleges and universities. However, it remains silent on teaching experience gained in recognised, university-affiliated private institutions. This omission effectively excludes a large section of qualified educators who have been teaching under the same academic framework.
As a faculty member of a permanently affiliated private college under Rajiv Gandhi University by UGC under 12B & 2f, I find this difficult to understand. I possess the same UGC-prescribed qualifications as my counterparts in government colleges. I was appointed through a proper selection process, part of designing curriculum under RGU for CBCS and NEP, teach the same university syllabus, evaluate students under the same regulations, and prepare students who sit for the very same university examinations. Yet, eight years of teaching experience are effectively treated as if they carry no value in state recruitment.
This raises an important question: if the nature of the work, qualifications, curriculum, and academic standards are identical, why should the recognition of teaching experience differ solely because of the institution’s ownership?
The irony is hard to ignore. Arunachal Pradesh proudly celebrates its private colleges when they earn prestigious NAAC ‘A’ grades and contribute to the state’s educational reputation. Those achievements are made possible by dedicated faculty members. If NAAC relies on the service of the teachers for grading, govt. can’t call it invalid. RGU engages us as paper setters, invigilators, examiners with official IDs and renumerations, which UGC recognises as academic service.
More importantly, this position appears inconsistent with the UGC Regulations, 2018. The UGC’s Academic Performance Indicator (API) framework awards teaching experience based on objective criteria such as holding an equivalent post, possessing the prescribed qualifications, undergoing a proper selection process, and serving in a recognised institution affiliated with a university. The regulations do not distinguish between recognised government and recognised private institutions. If the eligibility conditions are identical, the experience should receive equal recognition.
The constitutional position is equally clear. The Supreme Court has consistently held that arbitrariness is incompatible with equality. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), the Court held that arbitrary state action violates Article 14. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), it reaffirmed that any classification must have an intelligible basis and a rational connection to its objective. Further, in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (2015), the Court reiterated the importance of maintaining uniform standards in higher education where states adopt the UGC regulatory framework.
A policy that recognises contractual teaching experience in government colleges while disregarding equivalent experience in recognised private colleges, without any objective justification, raises serious concerns under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Certainly, the APPSC is justified in distinguishing between equivalent and non-equivalent posts. Excluding school-level teaching positions or unrelated appointments from Assistant Professor experience is both reasonable and necessary. However, excluding qualified Assistant Professors serving in recognised, university-affiliated private colleges stands on a very different footing.
Another important question concerns the role of the Arunachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission (APPEIRC). Private colleges are required to comply with rigorous academic and regulatory standards prescribed by the Commission in order to function. Faculty appointments, institutional quality, and academic practices are all subject to oversight. If the State recognises these institutions for regulation, affiliation, and quality assurance, it should also recognise the teaching experience acquired within them.
Otherwise, an uncomfortable contradiction emerges. The State cannot insist that private institutions comply with every national standard, celebrate their academic achievements, and regulate their functioning, while simultaneously declaring that the experience of their teachers has no value during public recruitment.
Beyond academic standards, there is also a significant financial dimension that cannot be ignored. Private colleges in Arunachal Pradesh pay substantial affiliation fees, inspection charges, renewal fees, and other statutory costs to remain affiliated with the university and compliant with state regulations. These institutions invest considerable resources to meet the standards prescribed by the UGC, Rajiv Gandhi University, NAAC, and the Arunachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission (APPEIRC). Faculty members contribute directly to fulfilling these benchmarks through teaching, research, accreditation work, student mentoring, and institutional development. If the State accepts the financial contributions of these institutions, regulates them, and recognises their degrees as valid, it cannot logically or ethically deny the legitimacy of the teaching experience gained within them. Recognition cannot stop at collecting fees and granting affiliation; it must extend equally to the educators whose work enables these institutions to meet the very standards the State demands.
Teaching in many established private institutions is demanding. Faculty members are expected to maintain high academic standards, meet accreditation requirements, mentor students, contribute to institutional development, and perform multiple responsibilities beyond classroom teaching. These experiences build capable educators who have proven themselves through years of dedicated service. Rather than being overlooked, such experience deserves fair consideration alongside equivalent service in government institutions. The state should not push/punish teachers based on their choice of institution, which is contribution to the overall development of the education system.
Ultimately, education does not distinguish between a government classroom and a private classroom. Neither should the State. A teacher is, first and foremost, a teacher. When qualifications, responsibilities, and academic standards are the same, every genuine year of HEI-level teaching deserves equal respect and equal recognition. This article is not directed to the guest faculties of the state, we respect their contribution, and as it should have been rightly recognised. The concern here, is the specification of recruitment rules and the eligibility criteria. This is written with a hope that our hours of service and dedication for the betterment of students community by sacrificing our personal space and time, sometimes works that would stretch to 2:00 AM, in the morning for Newsletters be duly acknowledged.
I respectfully urge the Department of Higher and Technical Education and the APPSC to revisit this provision and ensure that all teaching experience acquired in recognised, university-affiliated institutions in the state of Arunachal Pradesh is treated fairly, be flexible for private affiliated colleges and in accordance with the principles of the UGC Regulations and the Constitution.
Geeta Zirdo
Head, Department of Mass Communication, SCCZ
Associate, CoE, SCCZ