MV Narayanan

Why making the governor sole authority in VCs selection is patently wrong


UGC
x
The proposed system effectively ensures the Union government’s total control over vice-chancellor appointments, through the UGC nominee, the chancellor’s nominee and, finally, the chancellor.

First of a 2-part critique looks at how new UGC norms allow people with no academic qualification, and those with political leanings, to become vice-chancellors

On January 6, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan released the draft version of the proposed UGC Regulations 2025 (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education).

Not surprisingly, it has drawn strong objections from a number of quarters: student and teacher organisations, academics, intellectuals, opposition politicians and so on.

Two state legislatures – Tamil Nadu and Kerala – have passed resolutions against it, calling for its immediate withdrawal on the ground that it infringes upon the powers of the states and is against the letter and spirit of federalism.

The Congress government in Karnataka is planning a joint resolution with other opposition-ruled states against the new draft regulations at a conclave of higher education ministers being organised in Bengaluru on February 5.

Also read | New UGC norms for VC selection draw intense opposition from states

BJP’s uneasy ally

Most interestingly, even the JD(U), the BJP's coalition partner at the Centre, has criticised the draft for curbing the role of an elected state government in higher education. The TDP, another partner, has maintained a cautious silence that falls far short of an endorsement of the draft.

A closer look at the draft regulations will make clear that the objections raised are only the tip of the iceberg and that the draft holds within it grave dangers that have the potential to debilitate the entire domain of higher education, even as it can provide a prescient model for such unsavory interventions in many other domains of public life of the nation.

The simple fact is that the regulations fly in the face of the provisions of the UGC Act, constitutional principles of federalism regarding the sharing of powers between the states and the Centre, significant concepts of university autonomy and academic freedom, the practice of academic standards and quality that the UGC is supposed to protect and maintain, and, to top it all, the fundamental canons of natural justice.

Appointment of vice-chancellors

A major bone of contention in the draft regulations is Section 10, on the appointment of vice-chancellors in universities. It vests the entire power of appointment with the chancellor, which in most state universities happen to be the governor of the state, appointed by the Union government.

Watch | 'New UGC norms one more nail in coffin of higher education': Academic Apoorvanand

Neither the universities themselves nor the state governments, which almost entirely fund and support state universities, have any say in the process.

The chancellor shall constitute a three-member search-cum-selection committee of experts with a proven track record of excellence in higher education, which shall comprise a nominee each of the chancellor, the UGC and the syndicate of the university, none of whom shall “be connected in any manner with the university concerned or its colleges”.

The search-cum-selection committee shall then recommend a panel of three-to-five names, in no order of preference or merit, and the chancellor shall appoint whomsoever he is pleased with from among the panel as the vice-chancellor.

This system effectively ensures the Union government’s total control over vice-chancellor appointments, through the UGC nominee, the chancellor’s nominee and finally the chancellor.

Dubious credentials

At the same time, the eligibility criteria for vice-chancellors have been broadened from the earlier 10 years of experience as a professor in a university, or 10 years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation (Section 7.3, UGC Regulation, 2018), to include persons “at a senior level in industry, public administration, public policy and/or public sector undertakings”.

This would mean that people with little or no academic experience in the higher education system, including civil service officers, industry officials, public sector executives, etc. can be named vice-chancellors. Even more, with the ambiguously termed “public policy undertakings”, people associated with political and quasi-political organisations that have dubious claims of public policy making also become eligible.

Also read | TN Assembly passes resolution for rollback of UGC’s new regulations 2025

Given the current dispensation at the Centre and its track record of vice-chancellor appointments at central universities, it is almost a foregone conclusion that this will lead to a spate of appointments of unqualified, political favourites ready to do the Centre’s bidding in state universities and turn them into right-wing Hindutva bastions.

Arbitrariness at large

The process is writ large with arbitrariness. The clear distinction between the selection authority and the appointing authority, a fundamental tenet of all fair selection processes based on merit, has been completely ignored.

The committee of experts is reduced to a purely recommendatory role, denied even the right to rank the candidates, and turned into an impotent body, prohibited from actually carrying out the duty and role of proper selection.

The onus of selection falls entirely upon the chancellor, who has little claim to be an expert in higher education or any other field, given that the Constitution does not prescribe any qualifications educational or otherwise — for being a governor, except those of being a citizen of the country and being at least 35 years of age.

Faulty recommendation process

The patent anomaly here is that the UGC insists on the authority of the selection committee comprising experts to make the final selection in all other university appointments.

However, when it comes to the highest position in the university, it has discarded all canons of fair selection by competent people and entrusted it in the hands of a person who, by rule, cannot be expected to have any expertise in university education or governance or even basic education.

The net result is that, far from assuring that the best person is selected, the system effectively prevents that possibility because the most suitable person’s name cannot be recommended by the expert selection committee. Nor can the committee even recommend a rank list in order of quality/merit.

That leaves the final selection in the hands of a person who is eminently unqualified to make the selection and is also potentially swayed by ulterior motives. There cannot be a more blatant breach of natural justice.

Also read | Kanimozhi Somu interview: 'UGC gives minimal grant, wants maximum power'

Unqualified governors

The great irony of the regulation is that governors have become chancellors of state universities not by virtue of any constitutional provision but through state university laws enacted by state legislatures. The practice began with the British colonial government appointing governors of the respective presidencies as ex-officio chancellors at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras universities, the first three universities of India.

This was taken as a precedent and followed without any demur in Independent India when all other state universities came to be established. Several commissions and studies, such as the First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-77) and the Sarkaria Commission (1983-88), have criticised the politicisation of the governor’s office and urged that the system of 'governor as chancellor' be changed.

Recently, some state legislatures have passed bills replacing the governor with other eminent persons as chancellor. But such attempts at re-legislation (as in the case of Tamil Nadu and Kerala) have been thwarted by the governors themselves, either by refusing to approve the legislation or interminably delaying it by forwarding it for presidential approval, even as there is no constitutional requirement to do so.

Ultra vires of UGC Act

Rules regarding vice-chancellor appointments were not part of UGC Regulations till 2010, as they were only for “teachers and academic staff of universities and colleges” and the position of vice-chancellor was not a teaching or academic post but one to do with governance and administration.

Questions have been raised ever since VC appointments came to be included in the UGC Regulations, 2010, regarding the legal and constitutional validity of these provisions.

The UGC Act of 1956 clearly stipulates that the Commission's function is the "determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities". To this end, the UGC has the power to make regulations for "defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the university, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction" (Chapter 3, Powers and Functions of the Commission).

Beyond the scope of UGC powers

It is manifest from the above that the area of governance of universities is beyond the scope the mandate of the UGC’s powers. A glaring point in proof is that the UGC regulations have nothing to say about the chancellor, his/her qualifications or selection procedure, and leave the matter entirely to state legislation and the respective university Acts.

Even further, the UGC regulations are silent regarding the constitution or selection of members of such authorities as the syndicate/executive council, the senate/governing body, the academic council, the boards of studies, etc. and officers such as registrar, finance officer, deans of faculty, etc., all of which follow methods and procedures laid down in the respective Acts of the universities as legislated by the state legislatures.

In this light, it is evident that the UGC regulation on vice-chancellor appointment is ultra-vires of the UGC Act and beyond the scope of the constitutional mandate given to the Commission.

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)

Part 2: New UGC norms may set dangerous precedent for federal relations in other spheres

Next Story