NLU Meghalaya’s 100% Domicile-Based Faculty Policy Raises Constitutional Concerns
National Law University Meghalaya’s recent faculty recruitment policy reserving 100% posts for state domiciles has triggered concerns about constitutional validity, academic diversity, and national competitiveness. Read more and share your views.
NLU Meghalaya’s Faculty Hiring Policy Sparks Debate on Constitutionality and Academic Integrity
A recent recruitment notification issued by the National Law University Meghalaya (NLU Meg), Shillong, has triggered widespread concern in legal and academic circles. As per the advertisement (Ref. No. NLUM/09/Estt/Advt./2022/894) dated June 9, 2025, all faculty positions are reserved exclusively for domiciles of Meghalaya.
While local representation in public institutions is constitutionally encouraged, a complete reservation of 100% for domiciles raises significant questions regarding constitutional validity and academic implications.
A concerned Assistant Professor (Senior), (Resigned) from the university has highlighted the risks of such a policy. According to their inputs, this decision may violate the constitutional principles of equality, merit-based access, and open competition, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rajan Purohit v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [(2003) 8 SCC 692] and Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2020) 5 SCC 226]. These rulings stress that domicile-based reservations must be proportional and cannot completely exclude non-local candidates.
Furthermore, Meghalaya’s own State Reservation Policy of 1972 reserves 85% of government posts for locals, leaving 15% open—a precedent that is now being set aside without any stated rationale or public consultation.
The former faculty member also noted that:
-
Seven out of twelve faculty members have resigned or departed in recent months, citing administrative and structural concerns.
-
The new policy could face judicial scrutiny, potentially leading to a stay on recruitment activities.
-
The university risks compromising on faculty diversity and academic excellence, essential for national institutions.
The broader academic concern is that such an approach narrows the intellectual pool and weakens the interdisciplinary, inclusive learning environment necessary for a thriving law university. In an era when law schools are striving to compete globally, an exclusionary recruitment model could hurt both reputation and outcomes.
This development also appears inconsistent with the stated goal of transforming Meghalaya into an educational hub. For such a vision to succeed, inclusive, merit-driven, and constitutionally sound policies are essential.
What’s Your Opinion?
Do 100% domicile-based faculty reservations undermine merit and national competitiveness in legal education? Or do they reflect the need for local empowerment?
Tell us what you think. Comment below or write to us at [email protected]
