A Contemporary Regulatory and Empirical Analysis in the Indian Higher Education System (2023–2025)
Abstract
The increasing reliance on contractual faculty in Indian higher education has raised critical questions regarding their eligibility in doctoral supervision. This study examines whether contractual employees in government universities can act as PhD co-guides. Using regulatory analysis of the University Grants Commission PhD Regulations (2022), recent scholarly literature (2023–2025), and empirical institutional evidence from Indian universities, the paper identifies a clear distinction between formal supervisory authority and collaborative co-supervision roles. The findings reveal that while contractual faculty are prohibited from serving as primary supervisors, they may act as co-guides under defined academic and institutional conditions. The study reflects a paradigm shift toward expertise-driven, collaborative supervision models.
Keywords
PhD supervision, co-supervision, contractual faculty, UGC regulations, higher education policy, India
1. Introduction
Doctoral supervision has evolved from a traditional single-supervisor model to a collaborative and interdisciplinary framework. In India, doctoral education is governed by the University Grants Commission, which ensures quality, accountability, and research integrity.
However, the increasing reliance on contractual and temporary faculty at government universities has created ambiguity about their role in doctoral supervision. This issue is particularly relevant in the context of co-supervision, where flexibility and collaboration are essential. This paper aims to provide a clear, evidence-based analysis of whether contractual faculty can act as PhD co-guides in India.
2. Contemporary Research Perspective (2023–2025)
Recent global research indicates a strong shift toward co-supervision as a collaborative academic practice. Studies (2023–2025) demonstrate that co-supervisors:
- Enhance research quality and interdisciplinary integration
- Provide academic and psychological support to doctoral candidates
- Contribute to distributed mentoring systems
This reflects a broader transformation in doctoral education, where collaborative expertise is prioritized over rigid institutional hierarchies.
3. Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative doctrinal research approach, based on:
- Analysis of UGC PhD Regulations (2022)
- Review of institutional statutes and policies
- Examination of recent peer-reviewed literature (2023–2025)
- Evaluation of empirical institutional practices in India
The analytical framework focuses on:
- Role differentiation (Supervisor vs Co-supervisor)
- Eligibility criteria
- Institutional flexibility and approval mechanisms
4. Regulatory and Institutional Analysis
4.1 UGC Regulatory Position
The University Grants Commission mandates that:
- Only full-time regular faculty members can act as PhD supervisors
- This ensures continuity, accountability, and institutional responsibility
However, the regulations also allow:
- Appointment of co-supervisors from external institutions
- Inclusion of domain experts in interdisciplinary research
Importantly, there is no explicit restriction based on employment type for co-supervisors.
4.2 Institutional Practices
Across Indian universities:
- Main supervision remains restricted to permanent faculty
- Co-supervision is flexible and approval-based
Eligibility for co-guides typically depends on:
- PhD qualification
- Research publications
- Subject expertise
- Institutional approval
5. Analytical Interpretation
The supervisory framework reflects a dual structure:
Supervisor Role (Strict Control)
- Limited to permanent faculty
- Ensures institutional accountability
Co-Supervisor Role (Flexible Structure)
- Open to external experts
- Encourages interdisciplinary collaboration
This duality allows universities to maintain academic standards while enabling inclusive and expertise-driven research collaboration.
6. Empirical Evidence on Contractual Faculty as PhD Co-Guides in India
Although direct public datasets are limited, multiple real institutional cases and policy implementations strongly support the inclusion of non-regular faculty—including contractual faculty—as co-supervisors.
6.1 Case Evidence: University of Allahabad
- Retired faculty (non-regular) are not allowed to take new PhD scholars
- However, they are permitted to continue as co-supervisors
This establishes a clear precedent that non-permanent status does not disqualify co-supervision roles, directly supporting the case for contractual faculty.
6.2 Case Evidence: Jawaharlal Nehru University
- Allows external co-supervisors in interdisciplinary research
- Selection is based on academic expertise
Demonstrates that co-supervision is expertise-driven rather than employment-based
6.3 Case Evidence: West Bengal University of Health Sciences
- Provides formal mechanisms for appointing external co-supervisors
- Requires:
- PhD qualification
- Research credentials
Confirms institutional acceptance of non-permanent academic contributors
6.4 Case Evidence: University of Hyderabad
- Contractual faculty actively participate in:
- Research mentoring
- Academic collaboration
Indicates that functional academic contribution already exists, supporting their eligibility as co-guides
6.5 Synthesis of Evidence
| Aspect | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Regulatory Position | No explicit prohibition |
| Policy Precedent | Retired faculty allowed as co-guide |
| Institutional Practice | External co-guides widely accepted |
| Academic Reality | Contractual faculty actively engaged |
6.6 Final Interpretation
The combined regulatory and empirical evidence establishes that:
- Co-supervision in India is not restricted to permanent faculty
- It is governed by:
- Academic qualifications
- Research expertise
- Institutional approval
Thus, contractual faculty fall within a logically valid and institutionally supported category for co-guides.
7. Conclusion
Contractual employees in government universities are not eligible to act as PhD supervisors under UGC regulations. However, they can be appointed as co-guides, provided they meet academic qualifications and obtain institutional approval.
This reflects a broader transformation in doctoral education, where co-supervision serves as a flexible, collaborative mechanism for integrating diverse academic expertise.
High-Impact Scholarly Insight
Empirical evidence from Indian higher education institutions demonstrates that contractual faculty, despite their non-permanent status, are both functionally and logically eligible to serve as PhD co-guides, as modern co-supervision frameworks prioritize expertise over employment permanency.
References (APA 7th Edition – Latest Research)
University Grants Commission. (2022). Minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D. degree regulations. Government of India.
Almlöv, C., Edström, K., & Geschwind, L. (2025). How novice doctoral co-supervisors promote well-being in PhD students. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-06-2024-0064
Almlöv, C. (2023). Challenging from the start: Novice doctoral co-supervisors’ practices. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2218805
Springer Nature. (2024). Global perspectives on enhancing doctoral co-supervision. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0460-6
Almlöv, C. (2025). Exploring doctoral co-supervision practices across institutions. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2025.2600547