Reflections on 100% Domicile -Based Faculty Recruitment at NLU

Editor,
I write this letter with a sense of solemn responsibility, both as a citizen and as a legal academic who served National Law University Meghalaya (NLU Meg) during its formative years. With my tenure nearing its end, and having also submitted my resignation, I still remain aligned with the ideals with which the university was conceived.
It is in this spirit of care and concern that I share a few thoughts on the recent policy developments regarding domicile-based faculty recruitment at NLU Meghalaya. The advertisement (No. NLUM/09/Estt/Advt./2022/894 dated June 9th 2025) indicates that all faculty positions at the university shall be reserved for the State domiciles. This prompts a series of questions- both legal and pedagogical.
As someone who joined this university at a time when its vision was still being shaped, I have closely witnessed the promise it holds for the national legal educational landscape. The foundational ethos of the university was pluralistic, where excellence meets diversity, and knowledge is shaped through an open dialogue across intellectual traditions. Keeping that in mind, I personally believe that a complete domicile-based recruitment benefits from deeper deliberations on its long-term implications.
In public employment, the Constitution of India has provided a nuanced framework that gives a harmonious interpretation balancing regional representation and national integration. While affirmative action is deeply embedded in our constitutional morality, the Supreme Court of the country has time and again reiterated that it must operate within permissible limits. In landmark cases like 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] the judiciary has emphasized on the demarcations between prioritization of local representation and sheer infringement upon broader principles of justice, equality, and merit. More importantly, the Meghalaya State Reservation Policy of 1972 has beautifully maintained the balance between the rich socio-cultural fabric of the state, vis-à-vis creating a space for open merit. Having sustained through decades, a stiff departure from this policy, particularly in educational institutions of National repute, may mandate constitutional scrutiny and broader consultation.
Beyond the legal and policy lens, the heart of the matter lies in the academic life of the university. The presence of faculty from different parts of the country often enhances students’ learning experiences and helps cultivate critical, empathetic, and well-rounded professionals. It also serves to place the university on the wider national map, allowing for greater collaboration, recognition, and opportunity.
This is not to suggest that local representation should be sidelined-far from it. Meghalaya has a rich intellectual tradition, and many talented scholars from the state are already contributing meaningfully to the institution’s growth. The question is not one of “either/or,” but of “how best” we achieve a blend that honours the state’s aspirations while preserving the university’s broader academic and constitutional commitments.
This step also contradicts the larger vision articulated by the Hon’ble Education Minister of Meghalaya, who has expressed a desire for the state to emerge as a leader in educational development. However, Meghalaya continues to rank low on national educational indicators—a situation that calls for greater inclusivity, capacity-building, and inter-state academic exchange, not insulation or exclusion. This move, instead of projecting progress, may alienate talent, restrict growth, and undermine the very foundation of academic excellence that institutions like NLU Meghalaya are meant to promote.
Moreover, this decision does not merely affect prospective faculty from outside the state. It is also a disservice to the students of Meghalaya, who will be denied the benefit of learning from a nationally diverse and meritorious academic community. Legal education thrives on a blend of perspectives, exposure to diverse jurisprudential traditions, and a faculty that brings experience from varied social, legal, and institutional settings. Such richness cannot be cultivated in an environment of exclusion.
As someone who has lived and worked in Shillong, who has closely collaborated with local students and colleagues, and who has stood by this institution in its critical formative phase, it is painful to witness internal and external factors influencing a policy that threatens to derail the inclusive vision we all once shared. This is not merely a policy misstep—it is a message that Meghalaya is turning inward at a time when the nation is moving toward collaborative, inclusive education.
It must also be noted with urgency that if this policy is legally challenged in a court of law, it is very likely that the entire recruitment process will be stayed or struck down, thereby stalling faculty appointments altogether. This would have severe consequences for the functioning of the university. Already, seven out of twelve faculty members have resigned or left in recent months, severely affecting the academic strength of the institution. If new faculty are not appointed promptly and lawfully, the university’s ability to conduct classes, maintain academic continuity, and ensure regulatory compliance will be in jeopardy. This is not just an administrative crisis- it is an impending academic vacuum that could compromise the credibility of the institution in the eyes of its students, regulatory bodies, and the wider academic community.
In conclusion, I humbly urge the Government of Meghalaya, the Governing Body of NLU Meghalaya, and all stakeholders to reconsider this decision in light of constitutional law, judicial precedent, and the long-term interest of both the state and the institution. Let us not compromise the future of this National Law University- one that has the potential to bring prestige and opportunity to Meghalaya- by adopting exclusionary measures that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny and erode the confidence of the academic community at large.
I share these reflections not in criticism but in the hope that policy conversations around such matters will remain open, inclusive, and aligned with the larger vision that inspired the establishment of NLU Meghalaya. There is still time to steer this conversation toward a more balanced approach, one that honours both local priorities and constitutional obligations, institutional excellence, and educational inclusivity.
With sincere hope and continued goodwill for the university’s success,
Yours etc.,
Dr. Yogesh Mishra
National Law University Meghalaya
Via email