‘Power to appoint VCs must be with state govt, not governor’

 ‘Power to appoint VCs must be with state govt, not governor’ 

TALKING TO TOI 

The power of appointing VCs should rest entirely with the state govt, says Prof V Balakista Reddy, chairman of Telangana Council of Higher Education. He tells Nirupa Vatyam that new UGC draft regulations are a threat to federalism and a step towards corporatisation and commercialisation of universities. 

Excerpts from the interview:

 ■Can you explain the controversy on appointment of VCs? 

As per the UGC draft regulations, a committee must consist of three members. First, a nominee of the chancellor (in most state universities, it’s the governor); second, a nominee of the UGC chairperson, and third, a nominee from university’s apex body, such as the senate, syndicate, or executive council. This is problematic as it allows the power of appointing vice-chancellors to rest with the chancellor, thereby undermining the role of govts.

 ■What is TGCHE’s stand on the stand-off between the state and Centre on appointment of VCs? 

TGCHE believes that the composition of wsearch-cum-selection committee for VC appointments, dominated by nominees of the chancellor and UGC chairman, restricts the participation of the state. Presently, the state govt forms a three-member search committee and recommends three names to the chancellor/governor, who appoints the VC after consulting with the state govt. This draft is seen as an overreach into state jurisdiction, violating federal principles and reducing the authority of the states.

 ■Why has the TGCHE questioned the new draft regulation with reference to the qualifications for selection of VCs? 

The TGCHE believes that there is a dilution in the qualifications re quired for the selection of  VCs. Candidates for the position of VC must have prior experience of the university system, an understanding of the issues faced by students, faculty, and administrative staff, as well as sufficient knowledge of academics, research, and publications. The draft regulations suggest considering candidates from the corporate sector, public undertakings, and public policy, which indicates an intention to appoint corporate managers and bureaucrats to the administration of state-run institutions of higher education under the justification of innovation and global competitiveness. 

■Are there any recommendations to deal with the Centre-state conflicts over VC appointments? 

Yes, this stalemate can be addressed by following the recommendations of the Sarkaria and MM Punchhi Commissions on Centre-state relations. The Punchhi commission explicitly said that governors should not be vested with the power to appoint VCs, as such powers are not conferred upon them by the Constitution. It argued that involving governors in these appointments could result in controversies, public criticism, and conflicts regarding the functions and powers of the governor’s office and the state govt.

 ■What is the challenge in having seasoned bureaucrats as VCs in universities?

 There are two aspects to this issue. From a constitutional perspective, the Constitution emphasises the importance of education under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 41 and 45), which focus on creating a system that promotes knowledge and excellence. The role of a VC is highly specialised and requires academic expertise, research experience, an understanding of education policies, and a comprehensive knowledge of the university system. These attributes cannot be expected from bureaucrats, who receive generalist training and are neither subject experts nor specialists. From a judicial perspective, the judiciary has emphasised that the position of VC should be held by an academic visionary rather than an administrative functionary. 

■What about the process of VC appointments in other countries?

 In Western countries, the process focuses on academic excellence, institutional autonomy, and merit-based selection. For example, in the United States, the equivalent role of university presidents is filled through a rigorous, merit-driven process. A board of trustees or regents, independent from the govt, oversees the selection, often relying on professional search committees that assess the candidates’ academic and administrative qualifications. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, VCs are chosen by university councils or governing bodies, with a strong  emphasis on academic expertise and strategic vision, and minimal govt involvement.

 ■What are the objections raised by the state council when it comes to the appointment of faculty?

The council has raised three major concerns regarding the qualifications and academic credentials of prospective candidates. Firstly, the UGC draft permits appointments based on clearing NET or being awarded a PhD in a subject without having pursued a graduation or master’s degree in that subject. This creates a scenario where candidates may lack an understanding of foundational concepts. Secondly, there appears to be a dilution of the importance of research and publication. Thirdly, the definition of ‘notable contribution’ for selection and promotion is vague and appears achievable by almost anyone. 

■What are your suggestions to resolve the ongoing crisis related to the UGC draft guidelines? 

This issue can be resolved and is not as complex as it is portrayed in the public sphere. The UGC must consult all stakeholders, maintaining a spirit of cooperative federalism. This is crucial, as the states play a substantial role in achieving the gross enrolment ratio in higher education.