One step back: Draft UGC regulations add to Centre-state tensions

The recent draft regulations issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) over the appointment of vice-chancellors (V-Cs) in universities have opened up another friction front in Centre-state relations. The new draft regulations, issued on January 7, purport to clarify ambiguities in the process of appointing V-Cs in regulations set out in 2018. Though the new draft regulations specify a definitive appointment procedure, they appear to be appropriate for the Centre’s overweening powers over state-funded universities. As such, the draft regulations are unlikely to resolve the tensions that already abound with several states and their governors over the appointment of V-Cs.

 

At the heart of the controversy is the governor, the Centre’s representative in states, and the new qualifications for the V-C role. By convention, the governor is chancellor of state universities. The new rules vest in the governor dominant powers in V-C appointments. Under the 2018 regulations a search committee comprising “eminent persons” in higher education would shortlist three to five candidates either by public notification, a “talent search process”, or a combination thereof. The chancellor (in this case the governor) appoints a candidate from among the recommended names. In state-funded universities, the search committee is constituted in accordance with the state laws concerned. The draft regulations sweep away these specific laws and specify the composition of the search committees. To start with, the search committee is to be constituted by the governor and will comprise a member nominated by the chancellor (governor), the UGC chairman, and a member of the apex body of the university (the executive council, or senate). Thus, this structure precludes the role of state governments in the appointment of V-Cs in state-funded universities and, in effect, make V-Cs agents of the Centre. Given the controversies in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and West Bengal — where the issue is before the Supreme Court — the regulation is likely to amplify the fierce opposition to central interference in a range of issues that states traditionally consider their preserve.

 

No less concerning is the provision that V-C appointments need not be limited to academics with certain qualifications (such as, say, minimum years of professorship). Individuals with industry, public policy and administration, or public-sector undertakings can qualify for the post. It is unclear what objective is served by widening this talent pool for V-Cs. Since a V-C’s job is to act as the administrative and academic head of the university, a grounding in higher academics is usually considered essential in determining the quality of education, the direction of funding for university academic and research programmes, and the appointment of professors and lecturers. The overall purpose embedded in the long title of the draft regulation is to ensure “Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education”. Though state governments have admittedly not always played a helpful role in improving the quality of education in their universities, it is hard to see how the new selection and appointment criteria will make a qualitative difference. Recent experience with central universities has shown that the Centre’s proclivities have been to impose ideological/political templates on academic study and the type of personnel appointed. The old regulations were not perfect but the new ones add unnecessary controversy in already fraught Centre-state dynamics.