IIMs lag in implementing faculty reservation rosters despite Centre's directive, raising governance concerns

Updated 6 Oct 2026

Contents4

Hindustan Times - India · 6 Oct 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Education Mains · GS2 Governance High relevance

Several IIMs have failed to complete faculty reservation rosters nearly a year after the Education Ministry's directive, highlighting systemic challenges in implementing affirmative action in premier institutions.

Key points

IIM Coordination Forum minutes reveal 8 IIMs haven't submitted category-wise faculty position details and 10 haven't prepared draft rosters, despite repeated parliamentary queries on the matter.

The Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017 establishes the forum as an advisory body, unlike the binding IIT Council, reflecting weaker enforcement mechanisms for policy implementation.

RTI data shows severe vacancies in reserved faculty positions: 58.6% OBC, 55.9% SC, 79.6% ST, and 77.6% EWS posts remain unfilled across nine IIMs.

Post-doctoral fellowships were proposed as a grooming mechanism for reserved category candidates, indicating structural barriers in faculty pipeline development.

[GS2-Governance] This reflects systemic failures in implementing Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) constitutional provisions for affirmative action in public employment.

IIM directors cite lack of qualified candidates as the primary challenge, exposing deeper issues in creating an inclusive academic ecosystem from doctoral level upwards.

The forum discussed faculty mobility between older and newer IIMs to address experience gaps, suggesting institutional collaboration to meet diversity goals.

[GS3-Economy] Persistent vacancies in premier management institutes could impact quality of public policy education, affecting governance capacity building.

Way Forward: Mandate time-bound implementation with penalties for non-compliance, establish dedicated doctoral scholarships for reserved categories, and create a central pool of eligible candidates with mentorship programs.

Key terms

Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017
The legislation that granted IIMs autonomy while establishing the Coordination Forum as an advisory body. For UPSC, it's significant as it created a weaker governance framework compared to IITs, impacting policy implementation like reservations.
Article 15(4)
Constitutional provision enabling special measures for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. Relevant for UPSC as it forms the basis for reservations in educational institutions like IIMs.
Article 16(4)
Constitutional provision permitting reservations in public employment. Crucial for UPSC as it governs faculty appointments in public-funded institutions like IIMs.
Reservation Roster
A system for implementing reservations by distributing posts across cadres. Important for UPSC as its proper implementation ensures constitutional compliance in public employment.

Practice question

Critically examine the challenges faced by IIMs in implementing faculty reservation rosters, and suggest measures to ensure effective compliance with constitutional mandates. (250 words, 15 marks)

GS2 15 marks 250 words Mains

Key terms to include: Article 15(4) Article 16(4) Reservation Roster IIM Act 2017 Faculty mobility Post-doctoral fellowships Governance capacity building Constitutional compliance

Answer framework

Introduction

Briefly introduce the context of faculty reservation in IIMs, mentioning the constitutional provisions (Articles 15(4) and 16(4)) and the recent non-compliance issues highlighted by the Education Ministry.

Systemic Challenges

Weak enforcement mechanisms under IIM Act 2017 compared to IIT Council

Lack of qualified candidates from reserved categories due to pipeline issues in doctoral programs

Institutional resistance or lack of urgency in implementing rosters

Governance Failures

Non-submission of category-wise faculty details by 8 IIMs

Failure to prepare draft rosters by 10 IIMs despite parliamentary queries

High vacancy rates in reserved posts (OBC 58.6%, SC 55.9%, ST 79.6%, EWS 77.6%)

Structural Barriers

Inadequate grooming mechanisms like post-doctoral fellowships

Lack of faculty mobility between older and newer IIMs to share experienced candidates

Absence of centralized mentorship programs for reserved category scholars

Suggested Measures

Time-bound implementation with penalties for non-compliance

Dedicated doctoral scholarships for reserved categories

Creation of central pool of eligible candidates with mentorship

Strengthening IIM Coordination Forum's mandate

Conclusion

Emphasize the need for balancing institutional autonomy with constitutional obligations, suggesting a phased approach combining short-term compliance measures with long-term pipeline development.

Fact check

All facts verified