Editor,

I wish to draw the attention of the government, the Education Department, and the general public towards the highly confusing and questionable ‘excess teachers list’ recently issued by the Department of Education.

The basis and criteria adopted for preparation of said list appear to be unclear, inconsistent, and lacking transparency. In several cases, station senior teachers of the same subject serving in the same station have not been included in the excess category, whereas station junior teachers have been declared excess without any reasonable justification. This has created widespread confusion, dissatisfaction, and a deep sense of injustice among the affected teachers.

The concept of ‘station seniority’ itself now raises serious questions. If multiple teachers of the same subject are serving in the same school or station, then logically and administratively, the station senior should be considered under the excess category, if required. However, the present list reflects otherwise, where station seniors have been conveniently excluded while juniors have been targeted.

Even teachers who are on the verge of retirement have reportedly been included in the excess list, which further exposes the irrationality and insensitivity of the exercise.

What is even more surprising is that many newly posted teachers, who have only recently joined their respective schools, have also been placed under the excess category. Additionally, teachers currently engaged in census duty have not been exempted from the list. Such actions raise serious concerns regarding the fairness, accuracy, and sincerity of the assessment process adopted by the department.

Furthermore, the department is directing affected teachers to apply for transfer through the teachers’ registry portal. However, there is no provision or option available in the portal for teachers who have not yet completed the mandatory three-year tenure. As a result, many teachers are left helpless and unable to proceed with the transfer process despite being declared excess.

The entire exercise appears to reflect a ‘pick and choose’ approach rather than a transparent and policy-based administrative process. Such arbitrary actions not only demoralise teachers but also damage the trust and confidence of the teaching community in the department.

The Education Department must thoroughly review the entire excess list and rectify all anomalies before taking any further action. At the same time, the Arunachal Teachers’ Association should strongly raise its voice against such unfair practices and stand firmly in support of the affected teachers.

T Tabin,
Nirjuli