There have been, of late, many reports in the print media lamenting the unprecedented malpractices and rampant corruption in the appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs). Keeping these unfortunate aberrations and raging social evils aside and on a positive note, I would like to dwell upon streamlining and strengthening the process such that institutions of higher learning and research do not suffer mainly because of poor leadership and bad governance that beget mediocrity.
In Karnataka, general universities (other than those dealing with professional education such as health, engineering, law, veterinary science, etc) are governed by the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. Despite attempts to amend this Act, no significant changes were made in the last two decades. Section 14 and sub-sections 1-11 of the Act deal with various norms of appointment of VCs from among ‘eminent academicians’ through a duly constituted Search Committee. In addition, VCs’ appointment is also governed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010 as amended in 2013. In brief, these regulations that are mandatory to central and state universities, stipulate the following procedure:
Incumbents must be persons of the highest levels of competence, integrity and moral and intellectual commitment; should be distinguished academicians with a minimum of 10 years experience as a professor in a university system or equivalent experience and position in a reputed research/academic/ administrative organization. The Committee is expected to recommend a panel of three to five names. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint a VC out of this panel. Further, in 2014, the UGC amended the Principal Regulations of 2013 to add the following terms:
“The overall selection procedure shall incorporate a transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of merits and credentials of applicants and shall be based on the academic performance indicators (API) provided by the coordinator in the prescribed format”. Against this background, let us briefly examine the system followed in.
i) The Committee with one nominee each of UGC, the state government, the chancellor and the syndicate of the university concerned meets on a convenient date at a place chosen by the coordinating office, normally the Higher Education department.
ii) Brief resume of applicants (the number sometimes exceeds 100 these days) is presented to the Committee in a tabular form with appropriate comments.
iii) After gross perusal of the comparative curriculum vitae, the Committee shortlists a set of candidates. The full bio-data of these ‘eligible’ candidates furnished in the original application is scrutinized carefully thereafter so as to prepare, in alphabetical order (not on merit) a panel of three names.
iv) This panel is submitted to the Higher Education department, which in turn picks its preferred candidate after obtaining the approval of the chief minister.
v) The proceedings of the meeting of the Committee, together with the recommendation of the government, are forwarded to the Governor and the latter in his capacity as the Chancellor, he generally ‘concurs’ with (if not always) the recommendation and appoints the VC.
Anybody’s guess
i) First of all, there is no timeline specified in the Act/Statutes to fill the vacant position of a VC and as a consequence, such vacancies are allowed to remain for several months, sometimes even beyond a year. What would happen to academic endeavours in such a stalemate is anybody’s guess.
ii) In recent times, it was often observed that some members of the Committee were not just ordinary academicians but also included those much below the rank and class of a VC. This truncation has significantly lowered the very stature of the Committee.
iii) The Committee ordinarily meets for two-three hours to prepare a panel of ‘eligible’ candidates. It has no discretionary powers to deviate from the prescribed norms. Perhaps, it is relevant to mention, as a contrast, that in July 2019, the Finance Ministry while advertising the post of a Deputy Governor of Reserve Bank of India, had mentioned, apart from the ‘rhetoric’ eligibility criteria, the following progressive deviation:
"The Search Committee is free to identify and recommend any other person (other than the applicants) based on merit. The Committee can also recommend relaxation in the prescribed eligibility criteria of qualifications and experience in respect of outstanding candidates”. This kind of liberty and discretion are worthy of emulation as they enable the Committee to empanel the most distinguishing among the available candidates.
iv) It is known that academic brilliance is different from one’s leadership qualities and abilities to govern as a tactful head of a team. For instance, the recent student upheavals on the campuses of universities of Aligarh, Banaras, Hyderabad and JNU have glaringly demonstrated the utter failure of leadership to redress problems in ‘nip-at-the-bud’ manner. The Ministry of Education is now seized of the elapse. A VC as a leader should have the courage, wisdom and tenacity to take timely but tough decisions.
v) Apart from the lack of a fruitful dialogue with the ‘eligible candidates,’ the Committee in the present system, does not have any scope to evaluate the ‘incumbents’ personality, i.e their ‘physical fitness and mental alertness.
vi) It is unfortunate that the entire process of selection restricted to a few hours of deliberations is based exclusively on qualifications and experience mentioned on paper albeit mere qualification by no means is a fair reflection of one’s competence for efficient governance.
vii) The Committee would certainly do well if the final decision is made after assessing the suitability of candidates to be empanelled beyond the prescribed eligibility criteria.
viii) In order to maintain transparency as suggested by the UGC, it is desirable to put up the profile of empanelled candidates on a website to ensure that discretionary powers of either the government or the Chancellor do not lead to discriminatory action.
ix) It must be reiterated that in the system of the Vice Chancellors’ selection, personal interaction/dialogue of the Committee with the prospective candidates figuring on the selected panel, is of paramount importance. Second, an Empowered Expert Committee. to replace the existing Search Committee, should have the liberty to choose not only the qualified but also the competent candidates.
(The writer is former vice-chancellor, University of Mysore)
Check out DH's latest videos: