‘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.
