Editor,

I wish to add to the concerns raised in your newspaper on 10 September regarding the reported practice of pursuing regular academic programmes simultaneously, particularly where candidates are said to have pursued MPhil/PhD along with BEd.

The issue deserves wider attention because it concerns not merely individual qualifications, but the fundamental principles of merit, academic integrity and fairness in public recruitment.

The earlier letter rightly raised questions about candidates who claim to have pursued a regular BEd simultaneously with a regular/full-time PhD. The concern is legitimate. A BEd is a professional teacher-education programme involving prescribed coursework, attendance, practical training, teaching practice and internship. Similarly, a regular PhD involves coursework, research and other academic requirements.

The NCTE regulations prescribe specific requirements relating to working days, attendance, practicum and field attachment for teacher-education programmes. The issue becomes even more significant when regular PhD/MPhil or other academic commitments overlap with a professional degree such as BEd.

The UGC PhD Regulations, 2022 prescribe specific requirements for doctoral programmes, including the conditions governing full-time and part-time PhD study. Therefore, cases involving overlapping full-time programmes deserve careful documentary verification, rather than automatic acceptance of certificates.

An even more serious concern is the allegation that some BEd certificates may have been improperly obtained, including certificates issued despite questions concerning attendance, practical training, internship or actual participation in the programme. The NCTE, as the statutory regulatory body for teacher education, prescribes norms and standards for BEd programmes. Therefore, verification should go beyond merely confirming that a certificate was issued by an institution. Where necessary, authorities should verify the recognition of the institution and programme and whether the candidate fulfilled the prescribed requirements.

A certificate should represent genuine academic and professional training - not merely possession of a document. It would be inappropriate to identify or condemn any individual without documentary evidence. However, if credible complaints or discrepancies exist, the recruitment authority should have no hesitation in examining the relevant credentials and appropriate action should follow under the applicable rules.

The recruitment authority should consider introducing stronger and uniform verification mechanisms, including:

# Direct verification of professional degrees from the issuing universities/institutions.

# Verification of NCTE recognition of the BEd institution and programme, wherever applicable.

# Cross-checking admission and completion dates where two regular programmes overlap.

# Examination of overlapping regular/full-time programmes, particularly regular PhD and BEd.

# Verification of credentials of recently selected candidates where credible complaints or discrepancies exist.

# Establishing a uniform scrutiny mechanism applicable to all candidates, rather than selective verification.

Public recruitment must ultimately rest on one principle: merit deserves protection, but genuine merit deserves verification.

A concerned academic