AMU Appointment of V-C Naima Khatoon’s son as an Assistant Professor faces scrutiny over recruitment rules, expert selection and ministry guidelines.
Qalam Times News Network
New Delhi, August 22, 2026
New Delhi: The AMU Appointment of Ali Faran Gulrez, son of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Vice-Chancellor Naima Khatoon, as an Assistant Professor in the university’s Department of Law has come under scrutiny following complaints alleging that rules governing the recruitment of close relatives of heads of higher-education institutions may not have been followed.
The AMU Appointment concerns a faculty position created under the Dr B. R. Ambedkar Chair, a post intended to promote teaching and research relating to the life and ideas of Dr B. R. Ambedkar, as well as social justice, equality and the empowerment of disadvantaged communities. The Union Ministry of Education has received grievances from AMU alumni and has sought the university’s comments on the matter, according to information cited in the original report.
Gulrez’s appointment was communicated through a letter dated July 16, while the General Selection Committee considered the appointment at its meeting on June 24. The appointment is for five years or until the Dr B. R. Ambedkar Chair ceases to exist, whichever occurs earlier.
The controversy centres on Ministry of Education directions issued in 2018 concerning the recruitment of close relatives of a Vice-Chancellor or head of an institution. The directions, then issued when the ministry was known as the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), were circulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to central universities and other institutions on February 1, 2019.
Those directions provide safeguards for situations in which a close relative of an institution’s head becomes a candidate for a position. Among other requirements, the head of the institution is expected to disclose the relationship in advance and recuse themselves from the selection process.
The guidelines also recognise that recusal by itself may not completely remove concerns about possible influence. They therefore provide for the ministry to be informed beforehand and for two additional experts nominated by the ministry to participate in the selection committee.
AMU Says Ambedkar Chair Governed by Separate Arrangement
AMU’s Vice-Chancellor’s office has disputed the applicability of the Education Ministry’s guidelines to this particular appointment.
In its response, the university said the post was not governed by UGC regulations in the manner alleged and maintained that the Ministry of Education had no role in the selection. According to the university, the position was governed by a memorandum of understanding between AMU and the Dr Ambedkar Foundation under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
The Dr Ambedkar Chairs are established under a scheme of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, with the Dr Ambedkar Foundation administering the programme.
However, the guidelines issued for the scheme in 2021-22 contain a provision stating that an Assistant Professor appointed under an Ambedkar Chair is to be recruited through the procedure applicable to an Assistant Professor under the UGC regulations as adopted by the concerned university or institution.
This difference in interpretation is at the heart of the dispute over the recruitment.
A Ministry of Education source cited in the report confirmed that the ministry had received complaints concerning the appointment and had sought comments from AMU. The source also said the university had not sought the nomination of additional external experts from the ministry.
The university, however, has maintained that there was no requirement under the applicable rules or the MoU to inform the Ministry of Education about the nomination of experts. It said two experts were nominated by the Dr Ambedkar Foundation under Clause 6 of the MoU and participated in the June 24 selection meeting.
Gulrez has also been contacted for his response to the allegations, but his comments were not available at the time of reporting.
Former AMU law student Syed Kaif Hasan submitted a representation on July 15, one day before the appointment letter was issued. The representation was addressed to the President of India, the Ministry of Education, the UGC and AMU.
According to the report, Hasan relied on information obtained through an RTI response and raised questions about the recruitment process. He sought an independent inquiry and questioned whether the Vice-Chancellor had a role in approving the advertisement for the position.
The representation also questioned whether the Vice-Chancellor’s involvement in the process required a formal recusal.
AMU, however, has said that Vice-Chancellor Naima Khatoon did not participate in the selection committee and had recused herself from the recruitment.
Najma Khatoon, VC AMU
According to the university, Khatoon formally informed the Registrar about her decision to recuse herself. The university further stated that no file relating to the recruitment was placed before her and that she was on leave on the day the selection committee met.
Questions have also been raised regarding the authority under which the selection committee for the Assistant Professor post was constituted.
AMU’s statutes prescribe a process involving statutory academic bodies, including the Board of Studies, Academic Council and Executive Council, in matters relating to the selection of experts for such committees. The Executive Council is understood to have a role in nominating external experts.
The university told the publication that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor constituted and approved the selection committee under Statute 27 of the university’s statutes. It further said that the appointment was subsequently reported to the Executive Council and that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor chaired the selection committee.
AMU also stated that two external experts had been nominated by the Executive Council.
Some faculty members have questioned this explanation, pointing to the timing of the recruitment process and the absence, according to them, of an Executive Council meeting earlier in the year.
They have questioned how the external experts could have been nominated for the committee for a post advertised in February if the Executive Council had not met during the relevant period.
One faculty member also questioned whether the Pro-Vice-Chancellor had the statutory authority to nominate the external experts in the absence of an Executive Council decision. The faculty member referred to provisions of the AMU Act dealing with emergent decisions by statutory bodies and argued that such powers rested with the Vice-Chancellor.
The university has been asked to respond to these specific questions concerning the constitution of the selection committee. A response was awaited at the time of the report.
The controversy surrounding the present recruitment comes against the backdrop of an earlier legal challenge to Naima Khatoon’s appointment as AMU Vice-Chancellor in April 2024.
Petitioners had questioned the participation of her husband, Professor Mohd Gulrez, in the process through which her name was recommended for the Vice-Chancellor’s position.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitions in May 2025, holding that his participation did not invalidate Khatoon’s appointment. The Supreme Court subsequently declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision.
The latest dispute, however, concerns a separate issue: the recruitment of the Vice-Chancellor’s son to an Assistant Professor position and whether the rules and safeguards applicable to appointments involving close relatives were properly followed.
At present, the matter remains subject to competing interpretations of the applicable regulations, the MoU governing the Ambedkar Chair and AMU’s own statutory procedures. The Ministry of Education has sought the university’s response to the grievances, and any further action will depend on the findings and explanations provided by the concerned authorities.
