Ethical concerns arise over recruitment and NEP implementation at Manipur University

As the tenure of Prof. (Retd.) Naorem Lokendra Singh as Vice-Chancellor of Manipur University nears its conclusion, controversy has emerged over the timing of recruitment processes for faculty and staff, raising ethical questions among academics and student bodies. The advertisement for the next Vice-Chancellor has been issued, yet Prof. Singh has reportedly accelerated multiple recruitment tests and interviews in the final days of his tenure, prompting concerns over transparency and propriety.
Student unions and faculty members have repeatedly criticized Prof. Lokendra’s tenure, drawing parallels with the controversial administration of Prof. A.P. Pande, who was removed following a joint movement of students, staff, and civil society organizations over allegations of favoritism and mismanagement of University funds. While some student bodies have circulated press releases and submitted memoranda to the President of India seeking Prof. Lokendra’s removal, other unions have highlighted perceived manipulation in recruitment committees and the creation of a small, influential clique within the University.
Despite these criticisms, one notable aspect of Prof. Lokendra’s tenure has been the absence of student agitations, a point some observers consider commendable given the often politically charged environment of the University.
At the same time, the hurried implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has sparked academic concerns. Prof. Lokendra introduced NEP reforms even before the University Grants Commission released final guidelines for postgraduate courses. In 2025, new ordinances for undergraduate and postgraduate programs were framed, yet these have not been formally approved by University authorities. Departments were instructed to submit syllabi under the 2025 ordinances within a span of just two days, creating inconsistencies and confusion across disciplines. Students and faculty alike report difficulties navigating the new course structures, which were intended to provide clarity and modernization but have instead resulted in administrative challenges.
Experts and observers argue that professional ethics dictate that significant recruitment processes should be deferred until a new Vice-Chancellor assumes office. Filling long-vacant positions in the final days of a tenure may risk perceptions of bias and undermines administrative propriety. Many suggest that the outgoing VC’s priority should have been to resolve inconsistencies in NEP implementation, facilitate proper academic discussions through appropriate forums, including the Academic Council, and leave a smoother administrative and academic environment for his successor.
Critics warn that the current approach risks burdening the incoming Vice-Chancellor with unresolved issues, potentially impacting the University’s functioning and credibility.