Then news floated widely was that UGC in consultation with Mungekar Committee may do away with controversial exemption by reversing to NET raj. But as of today 14.06.2006 NET exemption remains. Academicians across the length and breadth of India anticipate yet another amendment since Review committee re-elicited views on NET in all the 5 zones. Dailies have reported that revamping of NET is in offing. But that is something of future which is uncertain.

Watering down of NET exam, no doubt is still speculated as to leave an adverse impact on the quality of teachers. But seems, popular exemption is quite final as Courts always leave it to expert bodies to ponder with qualification criteria and other academic matters.

In a letter, the Union HRD Secretary has asked all the universities to fill in the teaching vacancies. The letter laid out how the education system is suffering due to these vacancies. Probably that may be the reason why educational administrators took unexpected U turn. The quality of teachers still could be be much better if candidates having M. Phil and Ph.D degrees and NET candidates are properly screened at duly constituted selection committee as per unified selection committee norms of UGC.  

Even UGC Chairman in his interview to Tribune online News Service dated Sept 3, 2006 reported to have said " ...Ultimately, a candidate should be judged on the basis of his academic excellence and interview. An interviewer should be able to assess the quality of a teacher. Selection committees should have the final say".

New Delhi, April 11, 2007
By Saha Bahu  

In the wake of the judgement from the Delhi High Court, which set aside the appointment of lecturers of Jesus and Mary College (an aided minority institution), Delhi Teachers' Association has urged all the colleges to effect selection by a duly constituted committee in accordance with the UGC regulations. Instead, aggrieved college has filed an appeal in Supreme Court.

The petitioner by an advertisement invited applications for the sanctioned posts, constituted its own Selection Committee and recruited teachers. However, the affiliating Delhi University questioned the constitution of the Selection Committee as it transgressed provisions of its Ordinance amended as per UGC guidelines.

The Selection Committee composition shall comprise (i) the Chairperson of the Governing Body, (ii) the Principal of the concerned college, (iii) two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor, of whom one should be a subject expert, (iv) two subject experts not connected with the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of the governing body out of a panel approved by the Vice Chancellor, (v) one senior teacher/Head of the Department of the concerned subject.

Under the garb of minority privileges, the petitioner knocked the doors of High Court, as its first petition seeking relief was dismissed by National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. The petitioner contended that being an aided minority institution, it cannot be compelled to constitute a stipulated Selection Committee which violates its fundamental right to administer under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

In reply the University submitted that the condition imposed couldn't be construed as an interference with the rights of college to administer its affairs. Being affiliated with the University it is required to comply with said requirement just like other colleges since there is no discrimination in the application of impugned Clause whose object is to ensure greater transparency and objectivity in the selection process. The University's learned counsel cited long line of judgments that have examined the reasonableness of the regulatory measures that a State might seek to impose on the functioning of minority educational institutions.

Dismissing the writ petition for want of merits, Justice D.Mukul Mudgal and Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar said that the petitioner has failed to discharge its onus of showing that impugned selection committee provision infringes the rights of minorities under Article 30, because, the choice of nominating two neutral subject experts from the approved panel of University remains with the college, hence it cannot be said that there is no freedom of choice. Two members nominated by the Vice-Chancellor out of a total of seven cannot be said to give such member any unfair advantage. As regards two nominees of the Vice Chancellor, one is the subject expert who can only ensure a better quality of selection. This can by no means be said to be detrimental to the interests of the minority institution. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate how two persons nominated by the Vice Chancellor from amongst nine persons constituting the Selection Committee can actually override the decisions of the Selection Committee which otherwise is comprised of persons nominated by the petitioner itself, and the nominees of the management command a healthy and overwhelming majority.

Sources described it as a "landmark judgement" and said it would eradicate arbitrariness in the selection of lecturers.  When meritorious quality oriented candidates are selected, it would ensure standards and excellence promoting quality teaching.

Higher educational institutions are supposed to be the reservoirs of meritorious learning, teaching and high quality of research. Academic ambience is to be created and sustained for the realisation of this laudable objective. Merit is to be zealously guarded and promoted. The decline in the standards of higher education and the rot set therein can be checked only if merit does not become a casualty. Evils like corruption, nepotism and inbreeding, narrow political considerations and of caste, region and religion have all shattered the credibility of the system. Disillusionment and demoralisation have set in the minds of the youth. This has given rise to a grim scenario, both social and educational.

Need is to implement the impregnable existing defence in the form of evolving a well-defined policy framework and system for the recruitment of lecturers in the university departments, regional centres and constituent colleges.

The cherished objective behind the implementation of the new policy is that if fairness is ensured at the entry point i.e. the recruitment of lecturers, it will contribute a lot towards attracting meritorious candidates.

The transparency should be ensured, merit to be given due credit and the candidate's ability shall be effectively evaluated. The criteria as stated in UGC Regulation 2000 norms will help the selection committees avoid the undesirable non-academic backdoor pressures. The dirty departmental politics will be kept at bay. Whimsical appointments would not be made, thereby no space for extraneous considerations.

Every candidate shall be asked to speak for 3-5 minutes on his/her area of specialisation so that the UGC stipulated selection committee will be able to judge the communication ability and confidence of the candidate. The committee shall be constituted according to UGC norms.

The Regulations issued by the UGC being statutory are mandatory in nature and all the universities/affiliated institutions shall strictly comply with them. Sec.14 of UGC Act 1956 adumbrates stoppage of grants as a consequence of failure to comply with recommendations of the Commission. Despite unquestionable overriding authority, UGC has seldom invoked it in all sincerity. Consequently, corruption, favouritism and nepotism has become the order of the day.

The definite composition of selection committee for appointment of Lecturer in a Private College shall be as mentioned in Para 3.1.0 of the said Regulations is as follows:
  1) Chairperson of the (Governing Body of the College or his/her nominee to be the
      Chairperson of the Selection Committee.
  2) The Principal of the concerned College.
  3) One senior teacher/Head of the Department (of the concerned subject) preferably having  
      not less than 10 years of services as a teacher.
  4) Two nominees of the Vice Chancellor of the affiliating University of whom one should be
      a subject expert.
  5) Two subject-experts not connected with the college to be nominated by the Chairperson
      of the governing body out of a panel of names approved by the Vice Chancellor.

The quorum for the meeting should be five of which at least two must be from out of the three subject experts. The process of selection should involve assessment of teaching aptitude for teaching and research, ability to communicate clearly and effectively (either by group discussion or by classroom demonstration, at the option of college) and ability to analyse and discuss.

The College Managements argue that they are not bound by UGC Regulated selection committee norms citing same as recommendatory and they are free to make independent appointments. The matter reached courts as, though belatedly, Universities and Directorate of Collegiate Education has now categorically refused to approve qualification and appointments for want of mandatory selection committee. Courts have already ruled in favour of UGC specified selection norms declaring same as mandatory for universities/affiliated colleges including minority institutions. Presently, the matter is pending at various appellate Courts. Supreme Court has already adjudicated that appointments shall be as per relevant statute and any appointments in violation of relevant statutory rules shall not be regularized.

PRIVATE AIDED (NON-MINORITY) COLLEGES & UGC REGULATED SELECTION COMMITTEE
The Writ Petition 25433/2006 filed by `Private College Managements vs UGC, before the Madras High court "to approve the appointments of teaching staff and Principal without insisting on the constitution of the Selection committee" as directed by the UGC was dismissed by the Madras High Court which upheld the right of the UGC to direct the constitution of Selection Committees for appointments of teachers and Principals in private colleges. The Petitioner sought the Court to quash paragraphs 3.1.0 and 3.5.0 of the UGC Notification on DO No F3 -1/2000 (PS), dt March 2000. The Association termed the UGC directive as ultra-vires. In dismissing the case of the private managements, Justice Prabha Sridevan, quoted approvingly from the earlier judgment of Justice D Murugesan in the case of 'Dr S Arulmani v State of TamilNadu' (WP No 17630 of 2005, judgment dated 10-03-06). The learned Judge held that the UGC being a creation of Parliament is vested with powers u/s26-1- (E) to make regulations on appointments. Reminding the HE peddlers, he said that entry 66 of the Union List of the Constitution of India made it mandatory to ensure "coordination and determination of standards in Higher Education or research institutions". J D.Murugesan dismissing management arguments of ultra vires and aggression on State Government powers set aside the selection of Principal made by the VOC College Committee, Tuticorin, and Tamilnadu. Summary is that no doubt, only the governing body has the statutory powers to appoint but by duly constituted selection committee. Association of Managements of Private colleges has gone for appeal by WA 1322/2006 before Division Bench of same High Court and matter is pending since.  

PRIVATE AIDED (MINORITY) COLLEGES & UGC REGULATED SELECTION COMMITTEE
In Delhi High Court a Writ Petition(C) No. 5652/2006 & CM 4686/2006.(Stay) was filed by Jesus and Mary College, Delhi (an aided minority college) versus Delhi University and UGC (R2) seeking  reliefs that Clause 7(4A) of Ordinance XVIII of Delhi University (incorporated para 3.1.0 of University Regulations 2000 dated., 04.04.2000) is ultra vires, unconstitutional and not applicable to the Petitioner. Earlier college filed a petition with National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) who dismissed it, hence petitioner also sought to quash NCMEIs Order dated 13.2.2006. The main issue for determination was whether the petitioner is obliged to constitute a Selection Committee for filling up the post of Lecturer in different subjects, in accordance with the impugned provision.

The petitioner constituted a Selection Committee and finalized a list of the selected candidates for the post of Lecturers. However, the University of Delhi objected to the constitution of the Selection Committee as it was not in conformity with the requirement of the amended Clause 7(4A). The petitioner submitted that being an aided minority institution, it cannot be compelled to constitute a Selection Committee in accordance with the amended Clause 7(4A) and that such a restriction is violative of its fundamental right to administer its institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Citing various judgments of Supreme Court it contended that the right to administer amongst other things consists of the right to choose the teachers and principal by the Management after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy. The requirement of having two nominees of the Vice Chancellor on the Selection Committee was legally unsustainable. It is for the management of a minority educational institution to choose the modality for selecting teachers of the institution even if the institution is an aided one. In other words, by interfering with the constitution of the Selection Committee, the University is depriving of the petitioner of its right to appoint teachers of its choice.

In reply University counsel submitted that the condition imposed could hardly be construed as an interference with the rights of the institution to administer its affairs. The institution affiliated with the University is required to comply with the requirement as any other similar institution, and there was no discrimination in the application of this Clause in the Ordinance. Further, the object was to ensure greater transparency and objectivity in the selection process and this cannot be termed as interference in the affairs of the institution. There exist a long line of judgments that have examined the reasonableness of the regulatory measures that a State might seek to impose on the functioning of minority educational institutions. These decisions vary on the perception of the extent of permissible interference, a particular regulatory measure may constitute, with the right of administration of a minority institution.

Division Bench of Delhi High Court examined in detail the impugned provision of selection committee of Clause 7(4A) of Delhi University ordinance which envisages the Vice Chancellor nominating two persons on the Selection Committee of whom one is to be a subject expert. Further the Chairperson of the Governing Body of the Minority College such as the petitioner nominates two subject experts not connected with the college out of the panel of names approved by the Vice Chancellor. As regards, the first category, the University had proposed two names......... one of whom was to be the subject expert. As regards, the second category, the University has prepared a panel of four names of professors. The choice of nominating two persons from the panel in the second category is still with the Chairperson of the Governing Body and it cannot be said that there is no freedom of choice with the petitioner in this regard. Two members nominated by the Vice-Chancellor out of a total of seven cannot be said to give such member any unfair advantage. As regards the first category even though both nominees are of the Vice Chancellor, one is the subject expert who can only ensure a better quality of selection. This can by no means be said to be detrimental to the interests of the minorities or their institution. Court concluded that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate how two persons nominated by the Vice Chancellor from amongst nine persons constituting the Selection Committee can actually override the decisions of the Selection Committee which otherwise is comprised of persons nominated by the petitioner itself, and the nominees of the management command a healthy and overwhelming majority.

Date:10/01/2003 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2003/01/10/stories/2003011000431000.htm

By N. R. Madhava Menon

The Supreme Court seems to be in favour of freeing minority educational institutions from Government control excepting to maintain academic standards through prescribing qualifications for teachers and minimum eligibility for students.

The court is emphatic in declaring that admission of students to unaided minority educational institutions cannot be regulated at all by a State or University if the procedure is transparent and merit-based. The right to admit students is part of the right to administer educational institutions.

An aided minority educational institution, however, would be required to admit a reasonable extent of non-minority students so that the rights under Article 30 (1) are substantially maintained while the citizens' rights under Article 29 (2) are not infringed. What would be a reasonable extent would vary depending upon the types of institutions, the courses of education for which admission is being sought, the educational needs of the minorities and similar factors. This (percentage of non-minority students) is for the State Government concerned to determine and notify. In the case of aided professional institutions it can also be stipulated that passing of the common entrance test held by the State agency is necessary to seek admission unless specifically exempted otherwise.

There is a certain amount of ambiguity in the law laid down in regard to the application of Article 29 (2) against aided minority educational institutions. On the one hand, the court does not want to water down the guarantees given by the Constitution to minorities; and on the other hand, it is reluctant to give up the non-discrimination doctrine of Article 29(2) whenever public funds are utilised to support educational institutions. Regarding the procedure and method of admission of students, are minority educational institutions totally free of Government/University control? Yes, provided the method employed is fair, transparent and merit-based. In the case of aided institutions the Government or the University can even ask for due consideration to be given to the weaker sections of society in the admission process.

The minority right to establish and administer educational institutions was so far governed by the law laid down in the famous St. Stephen's College case (1992), the principle of which the court found difficult to set aside. That judgment allowed full freedom to minority institutions provided 50 per cent seats were given to non-minority students. Now the Supreme Court found that keeping a rigid percentage is not desirable in law or in practice. The non-minority component should be reasonable having regard to the type of institution, population size and educational needs of the minorities. Again, there is scope for States to limit the exercise of minority rights which, judged by past experience, can be a constant source of irritation and conflict.

While the court recognises the charitable nature and service goals of education, it allows the authorities full freedom to collect fees and charges they find appropriate in unaided educational institutions, the only caveat being that they should not appear to be charging capitation fee for profiteering. Realising that education is increasingly being run as a business and that the cost of running it is escalating, the court conceded the need to have surplus income generated to meet the cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities. In the court's view this surplus will not be deemed "profiteering". This freedom from regulation in the matter of fees in the case of unaided educational institutions is what many critics of the judgment find as being violative of the spirit of equality, equity and excellence.

Apart from the freedom from regulation on the question of fees, private managements have reason to cheer insofar as the court has conceded their right to be free from governmental interference in disciplining employees through imposition of penalties for proven misconduct.

In a recent seminar, the principal of a reputed minority educational institution characterised the judgment to be potentially subversive of minority rights. He felt that the court in effect converted a constitutional guarantee into the domain of discretionary control of the Government of the day. He feared that the service element in education would be lost if every citizen had the right to establish and administer educational institutions with minimal or no regulation. When the court declared that non-minority students in aided minority educational institutions should be admitted on competitive merit through a State Government-conducted entrance test, the effect would be denial of access to weaker sections of society, according to him. Government bureaucracy being what it is, there is fear and frustration among managements of aided minority educational institutions.

It is difficult to agree completely with such an assessment of the judgment when looked at in the country as a whole. Yes, there are excellent minority educational institutions which have been rendering quality education at moderate costs before the capitation fee menace began warranting judicial intervention. The situation is different today because of the policy of liberalisation, politics of conversion, and the compulsions of democratic governance. Minority institutions which continue to administer educational institutions in the spirit of service (and not profiteering) have nothing to lose or fear from the judgment. If they are not seeking aid from the Government they are totally free from any control excepting the demands of natural justice and transparency. If they receive Government aid, the judgment asks the Government/University to exercise only the minimum regulations necessary to maintain standards and to provide some representation for non-minority students. One would argue that the educational scheme envisaged by the judgment deserves a fair trial before it can be condemned as elitist and anti-minority in character.

Will TEACHERS APPOINTMENTS in universities & colleges IN VIOLATION OF UNIFIED SELECTION NORMS of UGC help maintaining standards & quality of higher education?

Tinkering by colleges including minority educational institutions can make the situation far worse, detrimental to the interest of students in particular and nation in general.

Many of our educationists and public men... have not fully realised how serious are the actual conditions, academic and physical, that obtain in the colleges and universities. Even those who are broadly aware of the situation, fail to notice its poignancy because they have become used to such conditions.

STUDENTS KEEP WAITING FOR QUALITY TEACHERS:

The University Grants Commission (UGC) was established by an Act of Parliament in 1956. The Act calls upon the UGC "to take... such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of the university AND college  education" and empowers it to recommend to universities and affiliated colleges "the measures & necessary action in that regard".

The regulations brought in by UGC into a unified structure is to make it effective instrument of national development. The two university education commissions set up in the post-independence period, the Radhakrishan Commission (1948-49) and the Kothari Commission (1964-66), were concerned about this inherent weakness of the system and recommended gradual integration of all higher education into a single whole for the system to serve the interests of the nation better.

A quick survey of the UGC's initiatives and innovations since its inception shows that it has never tried to address itself to any systemic reform but has acted only when a malady in the system cried out for a solution.

It is a standing practice in many educationally advanced countries, notably Europe and North America, and is being increasingly adopted by communities that attach more value to merit and integrity than patronage. Japan is a good example of the latter. But the moot point is, can it take root in a system in which every appointment and promotion is an act of manipulation and no effort has been made to develop any mechanism which can scientifically measure and maintain surveillance over quality of teachers.

Unless the system recruits the best and the meritorious and provides an environment in which honest work is suitably rewarded, along with necessary facilities, changing conditions of service will only cause avoidable commotion. There is a healthy practice in many western universities to invite representatives of teachers and students to the selection meetings as observers. This ensures transparency and merit-based selections.

Some universities also display the bio-data of those recommended for appointment and invite objections before finalising appointments. Linked with this practice is the unwritten rule that with some exceptions those who take an academic degree from a university will not seek a position in the same university.

Consequently, there is very little room for inbreeding and abuse of power. If once appointed, a teacher does not come up to the mark, there is a mechanism to get a feedback on him from graduating students through a well-structured confidential questionnaire which is an important input in giving him a life tenure or a quasi-permanent position.

Even the valedictory is delivered by a sudden -- normally the one ranking highest in the graduating class -- who uses the occasion to comment on both the quality of teaching and what is taught, and is regarded by the authorities as a major source of information to judge the worth of a teacher and the relevance of the syllabi.

One must ask the planners whether they have given any thought to such alternative ways of achieving quality which may be more practicable. With tin gods sitting at the top and the culture of groupism dominating the managements of academic institutions it is not easy to push through hard reforms.

But in our country, college teacher appointments are made without the observance of minimum mandatory rules of duly constituted selection panel as per UGC norms. University and college appointments and promotions have been largely corrupted, politicised and bureaucratised with little regard for quality.

Among other factors which are inimical to growth of academic activity is the conception of institutions like universities and colleges as monarchies rather than as republics. Experience shows that the hierarchical concentration of power often "dwarfs the men who serve it" and diverts them "from intellectual concerns into intrigue and conflict over the small administrative and financial prizes afforded by... academic life". Since the present educational oligarchies stand to lose too much by a wider distribution of power and responsibility, they will not allow such a thing to happen. The losers are naturally the younger teachers who, instead of being provided a congenial atmosphere in which they can enter into a creative dialogue with their senior colleagues , "are soon caught up in the general atmosphere of indifference or cynicism".

The significance of concept of neutral, transparent & proper selection procedure while appointing teachers is & should be related from the point of view of studies of student, teaching to students, imparting knowledge to students, career & future of students and academic growth of nation as a whole.

Practically speaking, if selecting committee insists for appointing & goes on to appoint Mr.A from the all the available good candidates against the wishes of college managements then it will certainly amount to interference with minority rights.

But I would like to draw attention of all to the the fact that Para 3.1.0 of UGC Regulations 2000 doesnot interfere at all with the overall adminstrative control of the aided minority colleges in staff appointment. UGC stipulated Selection committee is not the appointing authority, the ultimate power of appointment vests and remains in College's Governing body or its authorised representative say College secretary and managing committee. Stipulated Selection committee helps College Managing committee to know who are the best suitable for jobs from the point of view of communication skill, teaching aptitude, subject knowledge, ability to handle classes etc. College managing committee shall route staff selection through UGC stipulated selection committee for better & best choice. Colleges can always appoint at its choice the best from those shortlisted by selection committee. In the interest of nation, academics, higher education & students, it shall be the duty of Universities and State Government (being State under Article 12 of Constitution) to ensure that not only qualified but quality teachers are appointed to teach students of Minority colleges. Not to forget that all qualified teachers need not necessarily be of quality. Emphasis shall be on selecting quality staff. Students of minority colleges can not be deprived of quality teachers. Any compromise on this issue will lead to infringement of Art. 14 which speaks about equality before law. While the students of non-minority colleges are blessed with quality teachers appointed by UGC selection committee, students of minority colleges may be devoid of same if proper selection norms are not made mandatory for them. After all the purpose of having, running, managing & governing colleges is to benefit students and certainly not college managements or favoured staff(s) at the cost of acdemic future of students.

The Court in Malankara case observed that all laws made by the state to regulate the administration of educational institutions, and grant of aid, will apply to minority institutions also. But if any such regulation interferes with the overall administrative control by the management.. such regulations to that extent will be inapplicable to minority institutions. Please note that UGC Selection committee norms infact supplements better administrative control so rightly shall hold good.

Any dilution in adhering to selection norms will only will result in negative compromise on  quality teaching which will certainly go against National interest.

Courts have examined the reasonableness of the regulatory measures that a State might seek to impose on the functioning of minority educational institutions. These decisions vary on the perception of the extent of permissible interference, a particular regulatory measure may constitute, with the right of administration of a minority institution.

The committee reported that while quality and relevance of our higher education is a big concern, the lack of access and equity in higher education is no less important.

The committee expressed its concern over fact that there exists certain amount of defiance by the State governments of the UGC's guidelines and regulations.  

For example, despite UGC's guidelines regarding selection procedure of teachers, certain States have evolved their own mechanism. Non - Govovernment aided Colleges affiliated to such Universities are adopting their own ways of selecting staff defying statutory selection norms prescribed by UGC.  

The University Grants Commission (UGC) is empowered, not merely to disburse development grants to universities and colleges in the entire country, but also to maintain norms and standards of excellence in the field of higher education. Its jurisdiction is all-inclusive. No college or university, course or discipline, can be started without its prior approval. It lays down the norms of selections and qualifications of teachers in the institutions of higher education as also the constitutions of the various selection committees for the recruitment of principals and teachers in the colleges and universities in the private and public sector.

As for the implementation of these and other mandatory provisions of the UGC's charter, while the latter seems to show indifference, the States seem to show scant regard. The areas of conflict between the UGC and the States are continuously on the rise; the defiance by the States is also continuously unrelenting. Some of the more vital areas of the defiance can be cited here, which have been detrimental to the interests of higher education, affecting the quality of education and the autonomy of universities and colleges.

After over four decades of its creation, the UGC finds itself today faced with all sorts of defiances and derelictions committed, interestingly, not by the private sector institution, nor the autonomous universities, but by the state governments, who claim concurrent jurisdiction on education. How sensitively does the UGC react to these defiances and derelictions is another matter. A key area of conflict has been the recruitment of teachers in universities and colleges. Although the UGC's stipulation requires a definite composition of selection committee for each category of teachers, the states have evolved their own mechanisms. While in Bihar, there is a separate commission of political appointees to make these selections, in UP, there is a similar body for the selection of college teachers for both govt and non-govt colleges. In Punjab and Haryana, while the selections of govt college teachers are made by their Public Service Commissions, those of the private college teachers are made by separate selection committees created as per the UGC's guidelines. Various other States have altogether different mechanisms for selecting teachers for universities and colleges.

In Delhi, selections to teaching positions are made strictly in accordance with the UGC stipulations. Each govt college in Delhi appoints teachers through open selections made by selection committees constituted as per the UGC specifications. It is possible in Delhi because the University of Delhi enjoys the measure of autonomy denied to the state universities by the state governments concerned. The UGC remains unconcerned in the matter of these variations. One excuse is the concurrent powers of the States, but that is actually limited to the creation of state universities. As regards the norms and standards on the selection of teachers, the UGC is empowered with an overriding authority, which is seldom invoked in all sincerity. The utmost the UGC has done to respond to such violations of its stipulations is to write letters and reminders to the states, that too mostly indirectly through the universities of the state concerned.

Another practice in the states, excluding Delhi, is to fill the positions of principals in the govt colleges by promotion. The states have never bothered to seek the UGC's permission to do so, nor even to inform the apex educational agency of the Centre. Nor has the UGC ever cared to take up this matter. Even in the selection of principals in the non-govt aided colleges, most States maintain their authority to override the selection committees. For instance, in Haryana, selection of principals and lecturers in the private colleges should be approved by the Director of Higher Education (DHE) and the Vice-Chancellor of the concerned university. In Delhi, only the Vice-Chancellor's approval is required. The DHE has a nominee on each selection committee for the recruitment of principals and lecturers. Recently, an awkward situation arose with the Vice-Chancellor approving the selection of a college principal and the DHE not approving the same. Annoyed by the Vice-Chancellor's action, the DHE is said to have sent him, a communication, which led to an amendment of the university's statute to the effect that if the DHE's or the Vice-Chancellor's nominee is not agreed to a selection, the recommendation of the Selection Committee will not be approved. To make matters worse, this amendment has not been made by the other university in the State to which half the colleges of Haryana are affiliated. Perhaps the Vice-Chancellor of that university proved a little harder than expected. Whatever be the case, Haryana today has three different norms of selections, although the State itself, and subsequently its universities, are committed through official notifications to the UGC's stipulated procedure of selection as a part of the package of new pay scales introduced from January 1996.

In the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Panjab University enjoys a strange status. It is neither a central university nor a state university. Large part of its funding comes from the Punjab Government and many colleges, govt. and non-govt., are affiliated to it. Recently, its Vice-Chancellor refused to approve the appointment of principals by promotion in the govt. colleges of the State and/ or of the Union Territory. Since the Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Vice-President of India, and not by the Governor of Punjab or the Administrator of the Union Territory, he can perhaps get away with this action. If a Vice-Chancellor of a state university had done it, he would have been summarily dismissed in no time. We have had several such instances in the States, especially in Haryana. Punjab Government does, of course, shows its teeth whenever its dictates are not heard. The financial cuts are ordered at once. Also benefits, such as pension or retirement age on 62, are denied or withheld. Interestingly, when all this goes on, the UGC remains placidly unperturbed, showing scant concern for such matters of local interest.

Another area of conflict between the state and UGC or its cared universities is the management of colleges. While the govt colleges of Delhi, like all other colleges affiliated to the University of Delhi, have their separate governing bodies as required by the university's charter, those governed by Haryana, Punjab or the Union Territory of Chandigarh have a single authority vested in the DHE, and through that office in the state govt. Hence, the UGC or the university concerned do not get to know how the colleges are being managed. Even though the universities have statutes related to the colleges affiliated to them, these autonomous institutions dare not even to bring these statutes to the notice of the authorities managing the govt colleges.

In Haryana, there is direct handling of the non-govt colleges, and even of the universities, by the DHE of the state. Any communication from that office automatically supersedes, the relevant statutes of the universities, and even the UGC stipulations. Matters such as the working hours, working conditions, creation of positions and recruitment, vacations and holidays, are all decided by the DHE. Other States are not far behind. In Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, Bihar and UP, there have been cases of authoritarian aggression on the unprotected territories of higher education. The UGC finds its empire too vast and unruly to even try to come to grip with the problems arising out of its vastness and unruliness.

To mention one more example from the numerous, where the States have shown scant regard for the UGC's directives, is the creation of state councils for higher education. To prevent direct govt intervention, the New Education Policy of 1986 had proposed such a council in each state. It is over 15 years now since the new policy was introduced, and the UGC has disbursed thereafter several thousand crores for three plan proposals to the state universities, but its letters, which are still being written, about these Councils remain unattended by most States. Only a few States have cared to take up the matter, and even those few have modified the UGC model to maintain their firm grip on the universities. Others such as Haryana and Punjab, have constituted a counter-force called the high power committee, which has ensured a more direct control and interference in the universities of the State than even before. As for the UGC, it has never lost its cool on such trivialities.

It is time the Union Government paid attention to the universities. University education should be made a Central subject. The second best would be to remodel the old and outdated edifice of the UGC. When created in 1956, we had only about 30 universities, all of the conventional kind. Today, we have about 250 universities, all of very different kinds. A handful of picked-up members and the conventional mode of disbursing funds cannot do justice to the vast and complex field of higher education.

A committee of competent academics can be appointed to prepare the new UGC charter with the specific mandate of modernising the agency, making it truly autonomous and functional. Another urgently needed measure is to permit the big business players to open private universities on the model of the best American universities in the private sector. The present-day model of the self-financing institutions in the private sector is not the one that can deliver the desired results. As of today, these institutions have to function under multiple controls, which in the name of maintaining academic norms and standards, have actually acquired bureaucratic sententiousness and circumlocution.

Consequently, corruption has become the order of the day. Vice-Chancellors and Chairmen, Deans and Directors, enjoying the authority to approve or affiliate, disapprove or disaffiliate, cannot escape the responsibility for the mismanagement of these institutions, more so for the absence of norms and standards required for achieving excellence in the most competitive arena of higher education.

The writer is a former Vice-Chancellor of Kurukshetra University.

Law of Natural Justice and Equity and public policy implies that right to administer does not include right to mal-administer.

The attitude of college managements in making independent appointments sans proper selection committee is a sign of mal-administration.

Moreover in my view selection committee as per UGC norms will aid Minority managements in selecting good teachers for student belonging to minority community in particular and other communities in general.

Similarly the very purpose of colleges is to benefit students and not College Management or particular staff or particular group of staff. Students need quality teachers to excel in their studies for better their future and so India's.

All qualified candidates can not quality teachers. While college Managing Committee are appointing qualified candidates as teachers sans duly constituted selection committee, they are hampering the standards and quality of education. Quality teachers can be selected only by duly constituted selection committee as same is neytral and procedure is transparent.

So considering the standards of college education, all colleges (Minority and Non - minority shall be compelled to make appointment by duly constituted selection committee as same mandatorily checks communication skill, teaching aptitude etc.