Regarding: Eligibility Of Mca, M Tech Holders In Teaching B -Tech Or M -Tech Students

I have the honour to bring the following facts for your kind consideration and favourable action.

We are working in a private engineering college as Asst Professors in the Computer Science and Engineering Department. Our qualifications are first class MCA/M.Sc(Information Technology), first class M.Tech(Computer Science and Engineering) and about to complete our Ph.D(Computer Science and Engineering). As per the existing faculty norms for Lecturer (now Asst Professor) cadre in the Department of Computer Science & Engineering, of Engineering colleges, a person with MCA / M.Sc followed with first class M.E (Computer Science and Engineering)/ M.Tech (Computer Science and Engineering) qualification is eligible. But as per the new norms the eligibility conditions are mentioned in AICTE website (AICTE) as follows.

“BE / BTech and ME / MTech in relevant subject with First Class or equivalent either in BE / BTech or ME / MTech”

Whereas as per the latest UGC Norms the eligibility conditions are as follows:

1.1. Master’s Degree with 55% marks in the appropriate branch of Engineering
(Engg.) & Technology (Tech) .
1.2. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in
disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted subject to the conditions
stipulated in these Regulations in clause.3.3.3.
1.3. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API)
based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) developed by UGC in these
Regulations shall be a mandatory requirement

Under this circumstances, it creates ambiguity in many ways and causes a concern for the people like us. The abrupt changes in the policy decisions will seriously damage to the existing system. There are more than one thousand staff members, who are presently serving in private engineering colleges who were recruited as per the existing rules. It is not fair on the part of AICTE to curb the existing, well experienced faculty members by imposing restrictions. It seems that the rule makers fail to consider the prevailing conditions and the welfare of the existing members. The new rules affect us in the following ways.
1. The new rules block the students of Science stream from entering into engineering streams.
2. In many previous meetings of AICTE, the importance of the science is strongly insisted. However, the new rules do not consider it.
3. There is no provision in the new system that insists the qualifications related to the specialization of Engineering Teaching (such as B.Ed. for school education) for producing best engineering teachers.
4. Like the existing norms, there is no separate clause in the new norms that deals with eligibility of faculty members of computer science & engineering course. Since, Computer Science & Engineering field is still in its infant stage, there are no sufficient numbers of postgraduates with engineering background.
5. Further, since there is no clear demarcation among B.E.(Comp. Science & Engineering), B.Tech (IT), MCA, and M.Sc (Computer Science/ IT/ Software Engineering), all these students are undergoing more or less the same curriculum.
6. Although, on one side AICTE permits the science students to enter into PG course in Engineering, on the other side it is not at all giving any opportunity to them to become a teacher. It shows the dual standards of the AICTE. Instead of concentrating the quality education, the new AICTE rules were framed to suppress the teachers with science background.

7. As for as the faculty eligibility norms of MCA is concerned the new norms for Asst. Professor is given below.

“ BE/BTech and ME/MTech in relevant subject with First Class or equivalent either in BE/BTech or ME/MTech
OR
BE/ BTech and MCA with First class or equivalent in either BE/BTech or MCA OR
MCA with first class or equivalent with two years relevant experience”

8. The third part of the above rule is ridiculous and illogical. The rule says the Fresher with MCA qualification is not eligible to become a faculty member in AICTE approved institutions. we wonder, how can a person get relevant experience for two years without permitting him to work as faculty member. The definition for relevant experience is not given anywhere.

Under these circumstances we humbly request you to kindly look into these discrepancies and advise the AICTE to find suitable remedies. We are in the hope that our humble views will be considered with due care and the remedial action will be taken to display the corrected norms in the AICTE web sites very soon.