Reservations about quotas: Universities must eliminate faculty ward quotas

Reservations in educational institutions are typically designed to deliver social justice and correct historical inequalities. When deployed as a compensatory mechanism for suboptimal remuneration or work conditions, however, they become an asymmetrical benefit. Yet Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), India’s premier institute of social-science teaching and research, has chosen the latter course by introducing a 5 per cent supernumerary quota for wards of its regular employees with effect from the 2026-27 academic session. This marks an extension of the provision of a limited number of seats reserved for children of the non-teaching staff. Candidates applying under this quota will, however, still be required to meet minimum eligibility criteria and qualify through national entrance processes such as the Common University Entrance Test for undergraduate programmes or the University Grants Commission National Eligibility Test for research fellowship or PhD admission. Although a 5 per cent quota does not sound excessive, especially since it is supernumerary in nature and many central universities follow a similar policy, the question is whether such a quota is warranted and whether it serves the purpose of equity in a dysfunctional higher education ecosystem.

 

India has one of the largest higher-education systems globally with about 50 million enrolled in some form of tertiary education. Of those, about 700,000 are enrolled in central universities. Despite these impressive numbers, few of the institutions they attend can claim to be of global quality. In the annual QS World Rankings by Quacquarelli Symonds, it is mostly the Indian Institutes of Technology that bask in the upper ranks. But the IITs cater to just 18,600 BTech seats annually. In the social sciences, JNU maintains a strong academic reputation in international rankings, figuring in the top 100 in several subjects. In the 2026 QS World University Rankings by subject, JNU ranked 26th in development studies. It offers 3,000 to 4,000 seats for admission across various undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Given the paucity of quality education in India, it would perhaps have served the cause of equity better for the university to have expanded capacity and offered more regular seats for those seeking admission on the “merit-cum-means” scholarships — for which the institution has an honourable record.

 

It may be argued that the quota acts as a perk of sorts for faculty in the absence of other key benefits. Admittedly, there is a significant difference between compensation paid to social sciences academics and those in the IITs. The latter can also count on performance-linked incentives and consulting income from industry to augment earnings. They also enjoy better work conditions — including air-conditioned cabins and regular water supply. These are not necessarily basic facilities in even elite central universities. In the light of these glaring disparities, then, a quota for faculty wards can be regarded as a benefit. However, instead of depriving deserving students the opportunity to study in a quality institution of learning with sequestered internal quotas, the healthier solution would be for the government to raise faculty compensation and invest in better infrastructure. This would not only create a virtuous circle of attracting better faculty, it would also serve the government’s purpose of making India a hub of quality higher education.