Samaw.com

Comment from Nandini
Time: February 16, 2008, 5:59 pm

The para 3.1.0 and 3.1.5 of University Grants Commission Regulation 2000 dated 04.04.2000 mandating private aided colleges to constitute multi-member selection committees to appoint principals and lecturers has been third time upheld by the Madras High Court. An order to this effect was passed by Chief Justice A.P.Shah and Justice V. Ramasubramanian on the writ appeals preferred by the Association of Management of Private Colleges.

The regulations prescribed the qualifications for direct recruitment to the posts of principals, professor, reader and lecture; career advancement to lecturers; and the constitution of selection committees for selection to these posts. The appellants challenged portion on the need to form committees to appoint lecturers and principals.

The Judge, citing Supreme Court rulings, said the direction to constitute selection committees was aimed at enhancing the quality and calibre of teachers selected for appointment and would fall within the UGC’s preamble of coordination and maintenance of standards in higher educational institutions. He said: “The impugned regulations have not completely negated the role of the management of private aided colleges in the matter of selection of lecturers and principals. Apart from involving representatives of the managements of private colleges, the regulations require the inclusion of subject experts in the selection committee, so that such a selection would actually ensure the benefit of the private college itself.”

He also rejected the argument that the regulations were recommendatory and not mandatory in nature, and held that they in no way violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The appellants confined their challenge only to paragraph Nos.3.1.0 and 3.5.0 of the U.G.C. Regulations, which provide for the constitution of the Selection Committees as follows:-

3.1.0. Selection Committees for Lecturer in a Private College.
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.

3.5.0 For the Post of Principal
1.Chairperson of the Governing Board as Chairperson.
2.One member of the Governing Board to be nominated by the Chairperson.
3.Two Vice Chancellor’s nominees, out of whom one should be an expert.
4.Three experts consisting of the Principal of a College, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a professor (to be nominated by the Governing Board) out of a panel of experts approved by the Vice Chancellor.
At least four members, including two experts, should constitute the quorum.

The process of selection should involve the following: -

(a)Assessment of aptitude for teaching and research
(b)Ability to communicate clearly and effectively
(c)Ability to analyse and discuss.
(d)Optional: Ability to communicate may be assessed by requiring the candidate to participate in a group discussion or by exposure to a class room situation/ lecture, wherever it is possible.

Court expressed its unhappiness over the laches that the aforesaid Regulations were notified in April 2000, while it took four years for the University of Madras to pass a Resolution in a meeting of the Syndicate on 08.11.2004 and the same was communicated to all Colleges, by a letter dated 23.11.2004. Similarly, the response of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, was also very slow and they communicated this requirement only by letter dated 03.07.2006 to all the Colleges. Contrary to this, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued G.O.Ms.No.111, Higher Education (H-1) Department, dated 24.03.1999, directing all aided Colleges to constitute similar Committees for appointment to the posts of Lecturers and Principals in aided Colleges.

The Court reiterated that the entire scheme of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, right from its preamble up to the provision relating to conferment of power to issue regulations, focuses attention on the “co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities”, a phrase borrowed only from Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

Court said, “the qualifications prescribed by the impugned Regulations, indicate only the bench mark or bottom line, viz., the eligibility criteria for selection. All candidates, who fulfil the eligibility criteria, cannot stake a claim for automatic appointment to any post. Candidates, who satisfy the eligibility criteria, can only lay a claim for consideration for appointment and the purpose of constitution of a Selection Committee, is to enable the appointing authority to select the best out of all those eligible for appointment”.

If selection of a candidate from among the list of eligible persons, infringes the right of the management, then even the Tamil Nadu Act would not have prescribed the constitution of a “College Committee”, to select candidates for appointment. As a matter of fact, even the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules lay emphasis on “merit and ability”, when it deals with the selection of a candidate for promotion to teaching posts. Rule 11(4) of the said Rules, makes it clear that promotions in respect of teaching staff shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. Therefore, a fair, equitable and transparent process of selection, with a view to have the best of talents, is directly correlated to “co-ordination and maintenance of standards” and hence the constitution of a Selection Committee, for the purpose of selecting the best material, is certainly intended to achieve higher standards in educational institutions.

It is seen from paragraph Nos.3.1.0 and 3.5.0 of the impugned Regulations that the intention of the UGC, is to pack the Selection Committee, with as many academicians and subject experts as possible, so that the best of talents is selected for appointment. It is seen that the Selection Committee contemplated by the impugned Regulations, is a committee of academicians and subject experts, in contra distinction to the College Committee which is packed more with non academics. The Selection Committee prescribed by the impugned UGC Regulations, commands more credibility and it would certainly ensure co-ordination, determination and maintenance of high academic standards in higher educational institutions. Consequently, the impugned regulations squarely fall within Entry 66 of List I and hence, it is within the legislative competence of the University Grants Commission.

Merely because the petitioners are receiving aid, their autonomy of administration cannot be totally restricted and institutions cannot be treated as a government-owned one. Of course the State can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of standards of education and to check maladministration.

Court cited following relevant paragraphs of T.M.A. Pai Foundation -vs- State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481]

“72. Once aid is granted to a private professional educational institution, the Government or the State agency, as a condition of the grant of aid, can put fetters on the freedom in the matter of administration and management of the institution. The State, which gives aid to an educational institution, can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of the high standards of education as the financial burden is shared by the State. The State would also be under an obligation to protect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff. In many States, there are various statutory provisions to regulate the functioning of such educational institutions where the States give, as a grant or aid, a substantial proportion of the revenue expenditure including salary, pay and allowances of teaching and non-teaching staff. It would be its responsibility to ensure that the teachers working in those institutions are governed by proper service conditions. The State, in the case of such aided institutions, has ample power to regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualifications for the same. Ever since in Kerala Education Bill, 1957, Re AIR 1958 SC 956: 1959 SCR 995, this Court has upheld, in the case of aided institutions, those regulations that served the interests of students and teachers. Checks on the administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound and will serve the academic needs of the institutions. In other words, rules and regulations that promote good administration and prevent maladministration can be formulated so as to promote the efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness in administration and to preserve harmony among affiliated institutions.

At the same time it has to be ensured that even an aided institution does not become a government-owned and controlled institution. Normally, the aid that is granted is relatable to the pay and allowances of the teaching staff. In addition, the management of the private aided institutions has to incur revenue and capital expenses. Such aided institutions cannot obtain that extent of autonomy in relation to management and administration as would be available to a private unaided institution, but at the same time, it cannot also be treated as an educational institution departmentally run by Government or as a wholly owned and controlled government institution and interfere with constitution of the governing bodies or thrusting the staff without reference to management.

73. There are a large number of educational institutions, like schools and non-professional colleges, which cannot operate without the support of aid from the State. Although these institutions may have been established by philanthropists or other public-spirited persons, it becomes necessary, in order to provide inexpensive education to the students, to seek aid from the State. In such cases, as those of the professional aided institutions referred to herein above, the Government would be entitled to make regulations relating to the terms and conditions of employment of the teaching and non-teaching staff whenever the aid for the posts is given by the State as well as admission procedures. Such rules and regulations can also provide for the reasons and the manner in which a teacher or any other member of the staff can be removed. In other words, the autonomy of a private aided institution would be less than that of an unaided institution.” 7. But that control cannot extend to the day-to-day administration of the institution. It is categorically stated in T.M.A. Pai Foundation that the State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. Independence for the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution”.

Even in Brahmo Samaj Education Society case, Supreme Court did not declare the State Enactments by which a College Service Commission was set up by the State of West Bengal, to be violative of their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In this case, the West Bengal State Enactments, which were under challenge in the said case, provided for the constitution of a College Service Commission, like any other Public Service Commission, for selection of teachers for appointment to all colleges including private aided colleges. No leverage was given to the managements of the private colleges, even to participate in the selection process, since the Service Commission was conceived of to be an autonomous body.

But in the case on hand, the impugned Regulations merely provide for the constitution of a floating body, named as Selection Committee, which would comprise of representatives of the educational agency running the private college. The impugned Regulations have not completely negated the role of the management of the private aided colleges, in the matter of selection of Lecturers and Principals. Apart from involving the representatives of the managements of the private colleges, the impugned regulations require the inclusion of subject experts, in the Selection Committee so that such a selection would actually enure to the benefit of the private college itself.

Moreover, even in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, which is just simply followed in Brahmo Samaj case, the Supreme Court held in paragraph No.107 that even the right under Article 30(1) was not so absolute as to prevent the Government from making any Regulation whatsoever. It was further held in the said paragraph that any Regulation framed in the National interest must necessarily apply to all educational institutions and that the right under Article 30(1) cannot be such as to over ride the National interest. If the right under Article 30(1) itself is not absolute, it is needless to state that the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) is also of the same nature since it is always subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law framed under Article 19(6). Therefore, we hold that the mandate issued under the impugned Regulations, to constitute Selection Committees for the appointment of Lecturers and Principals, is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Comment from Nandini
Time: February 16, 2008, 6:10 pm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Court upholds UGC regulations

Mandating private-aided colleges to form selection panels

CHENNAI: The University Grants Commission regulation, mandating private aided colleges to constitute multi-member selection committees to appoint lecturers and principals, has been upheld by the Madras High Court.
An order to this effect was passed by Justice V. Ramasubramanian on the writ appeals preferred by the Association of Management of Private Colleges and the principal of a Tuticorin-based private college.
The issue relates to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000.
The regulations prescribed the qualifications for direct recruitment to the posts of principals, professor, reader and lecture; career advancement to lecturers; and the constitution of selection committees for selection to these posts.
In the course of arguments, counsel for the appellants conceded that there could not be any challenge to the rule prescribing minimum educational qualifications for appointment to various posts. The challenge, hence, was restricted only to a portion on the need to form committees to appoint lecturers and principals.
Mr. Justice Ramasubramanian, declining to accept the argument that the impugned regulations sought to encroach the field reserved for the State to legislate and the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act existed already, held that the mere fact that the State Act received the presidential assent would not mean that it would prevail over the UGC Regulations, which were issued much later.
The Judge, citing Supreme Court rulings, said the direction to constitute selection committees was aimed at enhancing the quality and calibre of teachers selected for appointment and would fall within the UGC’s preamble of coordination and maintenance of standards in higher educational institutions.
He said: “The impugned regulations have not completely negated the role of the management of private aided colleges in the matter of selection of lecturers and principals.
Apart from involving representatives of the managements of private colleges, the regulations require the inclusion of subject experts in the selection committee, so that such a selection would actually ensure the benefit of the private college itself.”
Mr. Justice Ramasubramanian also rejected the argument that the regulations were recommendatory and not mandatory in nature, and held that they in no way violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Comment from Raj Munger
Time: March 17, 2008, 12:16 am

Thampu (acting Princi, St Stephen College) resigned on March 15 2008, since Delhi High Court ordered College to strictly abide to the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines on appointing principals. Thampu’s appointment had violated UGC guidelines on at least 4 counts.

The first was that the para 3.5.0 of UGC Regulations dated 04.04.2000 stipulated definite composition of selection committee for appointing Principal was not constituted. Delhi University has already rightly amended its ordinance in the lines of UGC selection committee norms with no exemption to minority institutions as also in UGC norms. On March 12, Delhi HC too has directed college to follow selection process as in UGC norms and not any independent process on its own.

The designation of OSD is an unsanctioned one.

He lacked vital basic degree of PhD when he was appointed as OSD. And now he has one but that too is not recognised by UGC.

And lastly, he held three posts, OSD at Stephen and member of College Governing Body and member of National Commission of Minority Educational Institutions.

News reported is that the Stephen’s Management is for fresh appointment as per UGC guidelines. But further violation of selection committee norms will trigger yet another controversy. Even NCMEI in its order citing lack of Ph.D as per University ordinance, also highlighted that VCs panel of atleast 3 members was not formed when Wilson was appointed.

Comment from Raj Munger
Time: March 26, 2008, 12:01 am

Tamil Nadu - Tirunelveli

Varsity teachers’ plea on principal appointment

Staff Reporter

An eco of judgement from the High Court

TIRUNELVELI : In the wake of the recent judgement from the Madras High Court, which set aside the appointment of the principal of Kamaraj College, Tuticorin, the Madurai Kamaraj-Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Teachers’ Association (MUTA) has urged the college administration to select a candidate to the post by a duly constituted committee in accordance with the regulations.When the post of principal of Kamaraj College, an aided educational institution, was to fall vacant on June 1, 2005, the college committee, consisting of nine members, including a university representative and three staff representatives, interviewed nine candidates, including S. Arulmani of Department of Tamil and J. Mohanraj of Department of Zoology.

Subsequently, at the college committee meeting held on April 21, 2005, it was resolved to appoint Dr. Mohanraj as the principal with effect from June 1, 2005 though the university representative gave his dissent note over the appointment.

Challenging this appointment, Dr. Arulmani, who showed himself as the seniormost among the applicants and demonstrated Dr. Mohanraj as the fifth in the seniority, filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court with the prayer for setting aside the impugned order.

The counsel for the petitioner, B. Ravi, contended that the selection was illegal as the constitution of the selection committee and the process of selection were not in conformity with the established norms and regulations of University Grants Commission. As per the UGC regulation, the selection committee should consist of a chairman of the college governing board and another member of the governing board nominated by the chairman, two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor and three experts consisting of a principal, a professor and an educationist from among the panel approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

The management argued that the UGC could only define the qualification and could not give directions on the constitution of the selection committee.

Allowing the writ petition, Justice D. Murugesan said that though the college committee’s power of appointing teachers could not be disputed, such powers should be exercised in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the UGC. Once the college was bound to adopt the minimum educational qualifications prescribed in the regulations formed by the UGC, it was equally bound to make selection only through properly constituted committee as per the said regulation.

Describing it as a “landmark judgement”, the MUTA Zonal Secretary, M. Nagarajan, said the judgement would remove arbitrariness in the selection of principals.

When meritorious candidate was selected, it would ensure excellence in its all-round functioning, which is of paramount importance, he said.

Comment from Bharath Narayanan
Time: June 22, 2008, 11:55 am

SC earlier has advised Stephen College to approach Delhi HC for independent appointment of its Principal. Before the confused Supreme Council and Governing body of college Court could decide their further course of action, Delhi High Court has on 4th June 2008 issued notices to Delhi University and the governing body of the St. Stephens college, this time on the public interest petition is filed by a former teacher Mr.R.K.Malhan seeking directions for appointment of a full-time principal. But the cousel Mr.Sachin Dutta remains same who earlier countered Stephen College at single bench of Delhi HC.

A division bench headed by Justices Siddharth Mridul and Manmohan asked them to reply by July 10 explaining why there was delay in the appointment.

The contention before the bench is that the college is moving on sans a head even as the admissions for the new academic year is on. The petitioner apprehends irregularities in admission as a full-time principal is not appointed. At present, college’s Supreme Council has appointed vice principal M.S. Frank as pro-tem administrator.

Many HCs have already ruled in favour of UGC statutory composition of selection committee for appointments in minority colleges. Hope proceeddings at Delhi HC gets over earlier so that SC can finally rule on the proper appointment procedure by minority institutions.