Ten years of contractual service is too long a period to wait for career stability; Goa government must evaluate a teacher’s worth in five years
The Goa government’s decision to regularise eligible contractual employees who have completed 10 years of continuous service is an important recognition of a problem that has existed for years. It acknowledges that people who have served the government continuously cannot reasonably be expected to remain temporary indefinitely.
But for teachers, ten years is too long. A teacher who has completed five years of satisfactory continuous service has already given an institution sufficient time to assess their competence, commitment, dedication, discipline and performance. If the same teacher continues to be retained year after year, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that the requirement is temporary.
Ten years is not simply a number on a service record. For a young teacher entering service at 25, ten years means reaching 35 while still living with employment uncertainty. If we consider a potential 35-year working career, ten years represents approximately 28.6% of that career. Five years represents about 14.3%. A teacher should not have to spend almost one-third of a potential working life waiting to know whether the career they have built will finally receive permanent recognition.
Five years should, therefore, be the point at which the government asks a straightforward question: Is this work genuinely temporary, or is it a continuing requirement? If the post or workload continues and the teacher has performed satisfactorily, there should be a clear pathway towards regularisation or absorption, subject to qualifications, proper selection, and applicable rules.
Five years is not an arbitrary demand. Mizoram’s Regularisation of Contract Employees Scheme provides an eligibility route for employees continuously engaged on contract for at least five years, subject to proper initial engagement, prescribed qualifications, and satisfactory performance. There is also a relevant example involving teachers themselves. In Haryana’s Aarohi Model Schools, the service bye-laws provided for regular appointment after five years of satisfactory contractual service.
These examples demonstrate that a five-year benchmark is not unreasonable. It does not mean that every contractual employee should automatically become permanent regardless of qualifications or performance. Rather, five years should trigger a mandatory, transparent, and time-bound review. Where the employee is qualified, was properly selected, has satisfactory performance, and is performing work of a continuing nature, there should be a defined mechanism for absorption or regularisation.
The argument is particularly strong in higher education. University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations state that teachers should be appointed on contract only when absolutely necessary and that such appointments should not exceed 10% of total faculty positions. Contract appointments should initially not exceed one academic session, with performance reviewed before reappointment. If the same teaching requirements are being filled through contracts year after year, an important question arises: are these genuinely temporary requirements, or is a temporary mechanism being used to meet permanent academic needs?
The Directorate of Higher Education’s own records demonstrate that contract and lecture-basis teaching has become an established part of the system. The DHE has repeatedly advertised Assistant Professor positions on contract and lecture basis across different subjects in government colleges over many years.
When colleges repeatedly require faculty in different disciplines, the government should examine whether those academic requirements are actually permanent. A contract should be a bridge, not a career. There is also a strong argument against treating experienced contractual teachers as if they were fresh applicants entering the profession for the first time. Many have spent years teaching undergraduate students, preparing lessons, evaluating examinations, mentoring students, undertaking research, and contributing to institutional activities.
This is why simply asking experienced teachers to sit for a fresh GPSC examination may not always be the most appropriate way to assess their suitability for absorption. This is not an argument against GPSC, merit, or recruitment standards. Rather, it is an argument that a written competitive examination should not be the sole measure of an experienced teacher’s professional worth.
A teacher who has spent five, eight or ten years successfully teaching students has demonstrated practical competence in a real classroom. Their academic qualifications, teaching record, research, experience, performance reports, institutional contribution, and professional conduct can all be evaluated.
An experienced college teacher is not in the same professional position as a fresh postgraduate who has never taught in a classroom. Many experienced teachers have also qualified national-level examinations such as NET or obtained Ph.D. qualifications under the standards applicable to their appointment. Asking an experienced teacher to start again as though their years of professional service never happened does not recognise the value of experience.
Career progression is another major concern. A contractual teacher may spend years performing the responsibilities of an Assistant Professor while remaining outside the normal career structure available to regular employees. The DHE itself recognises that past contractual service of teaching faculty can be considered for Career Advancement and pensionary benefits once they receive regular appointment, subject to applicable rules. That recognition makes an important question unavoidable: if contractual teaching experience is valuable enough to count towards career advancement after regularisation, why should the teacher have to wait ten years before receiving a meaningful pathway into that career structure?
The government has now recognised that ten years of contractual service is significant enough to warrant regularisation. That is welcome for those who have endured a decade of uncertainty. But ten years should not become the standard that future teachers are expected to endure.
Ten years may correct an existing injustice, but it should not become the model for the future. Teachers who have given years of their lives to educating Goa’s students deserve more than repeated contracts. They deserve respect, recognition, dignity and a fair opportunity to build a career. A teacher who has given five years of satisfactory service has already given the system enough time to judge their worth. The government should not need another five years to decide their future.
(Mithil S Faldesai is Assistant
Professor in Chemistry at Shree Mallikarjun and Shri Chetan Manju Desai College Canacona, Goa.)
