VC Selection Process: 5 Major Supreme Court Concerns

Selection process for Vice-Chancellors (VCs)

A collective of former Vice-Chancellors, academicians, and scientists has written to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) expressing serious concerns about the selection process for Vice-Chancellors (VCs) of:

• APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
• Digital University Kerala

• They alleged that the process violates established university governance norms and contradicts Supreme Court rulings.

Key Points: Selection process for Vice-Chancellors (VCs)

Signatories:

• 16 eminent personalities signed the letter, including:

• G. Madhavan Nair – Former ISRO Chairperson.
• T.P. Sreenivasan – Former Diplomat.

Major Allegations:

• Deviation from UGC Guidelines:

• The search-cum-selection committees did not include a UGC representative, violating Supreme Court judgments.
• This contravenes the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, which mandate a UGC nominee in the selection panel.

• Excessive Role of State Chief Minister:

• The current order seems to grant an “all-pervasive” role to the State’s Chief Minister in VC appointments.

• The petition argues this goes beyond the legal framework provided under the concerned University Acts and UGC rules.

Reference to West Bengal Case:

• The group pointed out that the current practice appears to rely on a precedent from a West Bengal universities case.
• However, they argue that the interpretation was incorrectly applied, leading to erosion of autonomy in higher education institutions.

Legal and Regulatory Background:

Supreme Court Rulings on VC Appointments:

Key Judgments:

1. Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. State of Kerala (2022) – SC struck down VC appointments made without adhering to UGC norms.
2. West Bengal Education Case (2023) – SC emphasized the need for independent and transparent selection processes.

• Mandate:

Search-cum-selection committees must include:

1. A UGC nominee.
2. Eminent educationists.
3. A representative from the university concerned.

UGC Regulations, 2018:

• Clearly define the composition of selection panels to ensure transparency and merit-based appointments.
• Any deviation makes the appointment legally invalid.

Issues Highlighted by Petitioners:

Political Interference:

• High political influence is discouraging eminent professionals from applying for VC positions.
• The Chief Minister’s dominance over the process undermines university autonomy.

Vacancies in Universities:

• A large number of faculty and administrative positions remain vacant, affecting academic quality.
• Students are migrating to other states and countries for better opportunities.

Governance Concerns:

• Lack of transparency and adherence to regulations erodes public trust.
• Weakens higher education institutions and their global competitiveness.

Implications:

Negative Impacts:

• Erosion of university autonomy.
• Decline in quality of education and research.
• Brain drain, as talented youth and academicians move to other regions.
• Legal challenges to VC appointments, creating administrative instability.

Positive Outcomes (if addressed):

• Strengthened academic governance.
• Greater transparency and accountability in appointments.
• Improved global ranking and credibility of universities.

Way Forward:

Strict Compliance with UGC Guidelines:

• Ensure that selection committees always include UGC nominees and eminent external experts.

Judicial Oversight:

• The Supreme Court may need to clarify legal positions to prevent misuse of precedents.

Reducing Political Interference:

• Establish independent bodies for VC selection, free from direct political control.

Filling Vacancies:

• Immediate steps to recruit faculty and staff to strengthen academic quality.

Encouraging Talent:

• Provide incentives and research opportunities to retain top talent within the state.

Conclusion:

The controversy surrounding VC appointments in Kerala highlights the tension between state control and institutional autonomy in higher education.
Strict adherence to UGC norms and Supreme Court guidelines is essential to ensure transparent, merit-based appointments that protect the credibility and global standing of Indian universities.