HC seeks govt, UGC reply on plea agnst NIFTEM VC appointment

The Delhi High Court today sought responses of the Centre and University Grants Commission (UGC) on a plea challenging appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship and Management (NIFTEM).
Apart from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries and UGC, a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath also issued notice to NIFTEM on a plea by a teachers' welfare association of the institute who have contended that the appointment was in contradiction of UGC Regulations prescribing minimum qualifications for such appointments.
The court has listed the matter for hearing on July 7.

The association, in their plea filed through advocates Prashant Bhushan and Govind Jee, have said that Respondent 4 (Ajit Kumar) was earlier a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Food Processing Industries when he was made a Director in the institute on January 31, 2012.
On May 1, 2012, his tenure as Director of NIFTEM, located at Sonepat in Haryana, was fixed for five years or 70 years of age, whichever is earlier.
"After NIFTEM got the status of University by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on May 8, 2012, the Respondent 4, assumed the charge of the Director cum Vice- Chancellor on the same day, without any notification for the said post," the petition said.

"The said appointment is in violation of the UGC Regulations 2010 as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court," the plea has claimed.

It has contended that "the Committee on Agriculture (2013-2014), Lok-Sabha raised serious concerns regarding appointment of Respondent No 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of NIFTEM which is made in complete disregard of the UGC Regulations, 2010".
Thereafter, the "government agreed that in future, Vice Chancellor of NIFTEM will be appointed from academia and she/he will be someone who fulfils the eligibility criterion laid down by the UGC/MHRD", the plea said.
The teachers' association has now moved the court claiming that the VC was "illegally and arbitrarily trying to propose/make certain amendments to alter the educational and other qualifications required for the direct recruitment for the post of the Director-cum-VC".