State universities in Tamil Nadu may have violated the University Grants Commission's regulations while appointing vice-chancellors, but the apex body has done nothing to stop these universities from violating rules. To make matters worse, the apex body amended the regulations for VC appointment, which were initially formulated to ensure transparency.
In 2010, the UGC came out with norms to choose a university vice-chancellor. ""The regulations were formulated after a committee studied this issue across the country for more than a year,"" said former vice-chancellor of Anna University, M Ananda Krishnan, who is fighting a case against the VC appointments of state universities in Tamil Nadu.
The UGC also issued a communication to all state universities asking them reformulate their Act, including the regulations for VC appointment.
As per the regulations, the candidate must have been a professor for at least 10 years. To ensure transparency in the selection process, the UGC recommended that the search committee will have a representative from the apex body who will be appointed by the UGC chairman.
But, in 2012, the UGC took a U-turn, and amended the regulations, where in the need for the UGC representative was knocked off the list. Given this change, the Madras high court observed that the UGC is itself responsible for perpetuating violations. To explain the UGC's position, the court has summoned the joint-secretary on February 22.
The petitioner in this case, M Ananda Krishnan, said, ""In the last five years, most appointments of VCs have not been transparent. Candidates are either not adequately qualified, or the appointing authorities were influenced by the candidates."" In some cases, he said that the search committee members themselves were not qualified to choose a vice-chancellor. Ananda Krishnan and director of ChangeIndia, A Narayanan, the other petitioner in the case, demand a uniform method for the recruitment of VCs.
""In the last one year, I have observed that the advertisements published in newspapers calling for applications have had different eligibility criteria,"" Ananda Krishnan said. The UGC recommends that only professors can become VCs. But in Tamil Nadu, only universities have professors, while in the constituent colleges, the highest post is that of an associate professor.
Applicants for VC posts feel that if the UGC norms are followed, then college teachers would be deprived of the opportunity to become VC. ""The state government has not sanctioned professor posts in colleges. There is a dispute between the teachers and the government. While we have asked for promotions based on career advancement, the state government insists on one professor per department,"" said an applicant for the VC of Bharathiar University.
""The objection that the universities did not follow the norms for minimum qualification does not stand. And, the Supreme Court itself has, in a case, said that the norms in the University Act are to be considered finally,"" he said.
UGC officials prefer to not to comment on why they have failed to take action against violating universities. ""The only action we could have taken was to withhold funds and this would have affected the functioning of the university,"" said a senior official of the apex body requesting anonymity said.
In 2010, the UGC came out with norms to choose a university vice-chancellor. ""The regulations were formulated after a committee studied this issue across the country for more than a year,"" said former vice-chancellor of Anna University, M Ananda Krishnan, who is fighting a case against the VC appointments of state universities in Tamil Nadu.
The UGC also issued a communication to all state universities asking them reformulate their Act, including the regulations for VC appointment.
As per the regulations, the candidate must have been a professor for at least 10 years. To ensure transparency in the selection process, the UGC recommended that the search committee will have a representative from the apex body who will be appointed by the UGC chairman.
But, in 2012, the UGC took a U-turn, and amended the regulations, where in the need for the UGC representative was knocked off the list. Given this change, the Madras high court observed that the UGC is itself responsible for perpetuating violations. To explain the UGC's position, the court has summoned the joint-secretary on February 22.
The petitioner in this case, M Ananda Krishnan, said, ""In the last five years, most appointments of VCs have not been transparent. Candidates are either not adequately qualified, or the appointing authorities were influenced by the candidates."" In some cases, he said that the search committee members themselves were not qualified to choose a vice-chancellor. Ananda Krishnan and director of ChangeIndia, A Narayanan, the other petitioner in the case, demand a uniform method for the recruitment of VCs.
""In the last one year, I have observed that the advertisements published in newspapers calling for applications have had different eligibility criteria,"" Ananda Krishnan said. The UGC recommends that only professors can become VCs. But in Tamil Nadu, only universities have professors, while in the constituent colleges, the highest post is that of an associate professor.
Applicants for VC posts feel that if the UGC norms are followed, then college teachers would be deprived of the opportunity to become VC. ""The state government has not sanctioned professor posts in colleges. There is a dispute between the teachers and the government. While we have asked for promotions based on career advancement, the state government insists on one professor per department,"" said an applicant for the VC of Bharathiar University.
""The objection that the universities did not follow the norms for minimum qualification does not stand. And, the Supreme Court itself has, in a case, said that the norms in the University Act are to be considered finally,"" he said.
UGC officials prefer to not to comment on why they have failed to take action against violating universities. ""The only action we could have taken was to withhold funds and this would have affected the functioning of the university,"" said a senior official of the apex body requesting anonymity said.