[Reader-list] CG, MHRD, UGC, SG, Universities - check and set right gross violation of selection norms for college lecturers .

[mprabhakar prabhakar]

          Sir,
   
  Sub: 
  Violation of mandatory college teachers selection norms -  existing Judicial precedents uphelding mandatory UGC selection committee - pending writ petitions - request to set right proper selection process - regarding.
   
  Ref: 
  1. Entry 66 Constitution of India.  
  2. UGC Act 1956.
  3. UGC Regulation 2000 and  Para 3.1.0.
  4. Madras University Circular dated 23-11-2004 and 4-12-2004 No.A-II/ASO-     1/PRES.QLN/2004/1953.
  5. Pending  WA 1322/2006 and other pending cases
  6. Upheld UGC Selection committee in  
  WP 25433/2006, 
  Mary  College (anAided Minority College)  vs University of Delhi,
  American College case, Madurai  Kamaraj University,     
  Sundara Mahalingam case, Madurai  Kamaraj University,
  Calicut University Case, Kerala University Case,
   Kamaraj College, Tuticorin Case, Madurai  Kamaraj University,
                   
  During the last few years, there has been considerable enhancement in the concerns over the fairness of the selection procedure of college teachers and also Principals, following frequent complaints of irregularities and corruption in the appointments of lecturers. In this context, already there exists an unified code for the selection procedure as stipulated by UGC Regulation 2000, still most arbitrary ways of selection adopted and follows vastly different outdated rules. Since the teachers at the university and degree college levels represent the apex of higher education and research in India, it is necessary that they be selected strictly on the basis of merit. On the contrary, the selection procedures at present are guided by politics, regionalism, recommendations and even bribery.
   
  It is widely spoken that Madras University has resolved to approve the outdated and improper Selection Committee constituted by the college managements under the Private Colleges Regulation Act to appoint faculty in the vacant sanctioned positions. Such approval will amount to grave contempt of court as the matter is already pending in Madras High Court WA 1322/2006 and other writ petitions. For your kind information many Courts have already upheld the mandatory nature of UGC Selection committee for aided as well as aided minority colleges (Judgement Details enclosed).
   
   Already in WP 25433/2006 in Madras High Court, Mrs.Justice Prabhasridevan quashed outdated College Management Committee, endorsing statutory force of UGC Regulations 2000 stipulated selection committee. The irony is that the same Madras University adopted UGC Regulations in totto by its circular dated 4-12-2004. Also in WP 25433 filed by Association of Private Colleges, the same Madras University favoured to go against Private college Associations. The said association unsuccessfully contended non-applicability of UGC stipulated selection committee.
   
  The sudden stand of Madras university siding with already quashed contention of Association of Private college and  taking complete U-turn of its own recent  contention of favoring UGC selection committee in Justice Prabhasridevan Court and U-turn of its own circular dated 4-12-2004, also violating the judgment of WP 25433 by Hon'ble Madras High Court and Section 26 (1)(g) and 14 of UGC Act 1956 read with UGC Regulations 2000 puts question mark on the neutrality, credibility and supposed to be impartial attitude of University.
   
  Pending WA 1322/2006 in which UGC, Madras University, DCE, other universities are respondents. The Private College Management Association’s untiring desire to override Selection Committee (as per UGC Regulation 2000 and UGC Act 1956 being central legislation) in spite of their petition already dismissed by Mrs.Justice Prabhasridevan in WP 25433/2006 citing the matter as covered judgement by Justice Murugesan Bench in yet another case (details enclosed).The need is of move from UGC and other saviours of higher education including Madras University  to protect the UGC selection committee to provide a sense of great relief for all those who aspire for a fair and transparent appointment process in the country as a whole in the long-term interest of maintenance quality of higher education
   
  Pending many other Writ Petitions in which UGC, Madras University, Director of Collegiate Education, Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education and appointing colleges being  respondents, an interim injunction by Madras HC on appointments made in a college affiliated to Madras University where in court is calling for entire records of selection process and directing the appointing college to constitute selection committee for re-commencing the selection process. The appointment made in that affiliated aided college is stayed, the reason being  vitiated selection process. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jyothimani at Madras High Court was pleased to pass an injunction order on the reason being appointment made without constitution of proper Selection committee as stipulated by UGC Regulations 2000. The matter is pending.
   
  The court has ordered the University and Directors of Collegiate Education, not to approve the qualifications. The Madras University earlier asked for the resolution and minutes of UGC stipulated selection committee which was not at all constituted. Also in another aided minority college in the city, the papers sent for sanctioning of approval of appointment were rejected by the same Madras University somewhere in the third week of November 2006, the reason being violation of selection norms. But the sudden change in the University's attitude on 30th November raises the point blank questions.  
   
  Being the controller of higher education, it is the duty of Madras University to strictly implement para 3.1.0, 3.5.0 and other paras  set of rules for such selections in colleges and University. One finds it surprising to note that inspite of clear-cut mandatory procedures  have been laid down by UGC for checking irregularities and bringing a certain level of reasonability and transparency in the system, there is violation of the same but unsuccessfully as Country's Judiciary has now and then quashed such irregularity. The favoritism and corruptive attitude is detrimental to the right of equality and not free from influences and cannot be maintained in terms of fairness as contemplated by the UGC the watchdog of higher education.
   
  But presently in Tamilnadu the existing provision of proper selection procedure are thrown in to winds, violating Entry 66 in Constitution of India, UGC Act 1956 a Central Legislation, also statutory UGC Regulation 2000, many judicial precedents (judgement details enclosed)  uphelding UGC selection committee and same pending issues in Madras High Court.
   
  Madras University also resolved that the Circular in this regard be withdrawn in the light of the UGC’s guidelines being recommendatory and not mandatory. How can an administrative body assume the role of judiciary in declaring UGC Regulation as recommendatory and not mandatory when Courts have already upheld its mandatory nature.
   
  The UGC Regulations 2000 lays down strict and mandatory guidelines regarding the appointment of teachers in universities and colleges with certain prerequisites, one of them being making appointments of lecturers by UGC stipulated selection committee as per UGC Regulations 2000 para 3.1.0 comprising -
  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 that 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.
   
  The Principal and Head of the Department should be necessarily included in the Selection Committee.The quorum for the meeting should be five of which at least two must be from out of the three subject experts.
   
  However, few of the defaulters especially the so-called minority and non-minority  aided and  colleges under deficit scheme, who under the garb of special privilege continue to flaunt the requirement which shall apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission. Consequences of failure of universities and colleges to comply with UGC Regulation 2000 of the Commission are prescibed in Section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
   
  The surprising fact is that the University of Madras in its Meetings of the Syndicate held on 30th November 2006 have passed resolutions contrary to UGC Regulations 2000 and its own circular letter dated 2-12-2004 No.A-II/ASO-1/PRES.QLN/2004/1953 adopting UGC Regulations 2000 in toto and also contrary to many judicial precedents uphelding UGC stipulated selection committee over college management committee. The letter from then Registrar, University of Madras dated 2-12-2004 No.A-II/ASO-1/PRES.QLN/2004/1953 spells the composition of selection committee for selection of Principal and Lecturer as per UGC Regulation 2000 and also states that the selection process shall involve assessment of teaching and research aptitude, communication (by group discussion or class lecture demonstration), discussion and analysis ability. The same letter categorically states that request for grant of approval of qualifications in respect of said appointments will not be considered by the
 University, if the prescribed selection procedures are not followed by the college managements during selection of Principals and other teaching posts.
   
  The said regulations are mandatory throughout India. The sound and legal practice of making appointments by UGC selection committee is not a bottleneck. The obstacle is the unwillingness of college managements in following mandatory regulation. The concept of college management committee as stipulated by Tamilnadu Private College Regulation Act 1976 is outdated and eclipsed in the light of UGC Regulations 2000 (dated 4-4-2000) stipulated selection committee and Mrs.Justice Prabhasridevan Madras High Court too upheld the same in WP 25433/2006 in its judgement dated 12-9-2006. The concept of selection committees vide para 3.1.0 and other paras forms integral part of minimum qualifications criteria.
   
  The resolution appealing approval of management committee and qualification of candidates favoured by such committee amounts to severe contempt of court as matter is pending in Madras High Court in WA 1322/2006 filed by one Mr.Aruchami, secretary of Private colleges association consequent of disposal of WP 25433 filed by the same gentleman which upheld UGC selection committee, quashing management committee for selection of teachers. Still three more case are pending in Madras high Court on the same issue. The essentiality should not be in making illegaland improper appointments but appointment by proper selection procedure more so when funded by public exchequer. But the malafide intention of making money win over merit, inculcating favouritism in such public appointments defying the principles and legality of neutrality and impartiality was exposed in Indian Express Daily.
   
  The Governments and other watchdogs of higher education must see that only persons appointed by stipulated selection committee along with other requirements get appointed to these institutions as lecturers as they draw salary from the government. Make use of your good offices in restraining Madras University from committing such a blunder when mandatory UGC Regulation 2000 vide para 3.1.0 and 3.5.0 on appointment of lecturers and Principal respectively makes it clear cut that such appointments be made by duly constituted UGC stipulated selection committee.
   
  Thanking You,
  Yours truly
  M.Rangasamy
   
  ENCLOSURES
   
    Mary College (anAided Minority College)  vs University of Delhi - Service matter.
     In yet another case in Delhi High Court- Division Bench, a Writ Petition filed by an aided minority college which appointed lecturers in june 2005 by college management committee is quashed and dismissed. Delhi University prescribes selection committee, the composition of which is as per UGC Regulation 2000 para 3.1.0. 
   
  On wise refusal of approval by University, the defaulting  college approached National Minority Commission which in turn duly dismissed petition filed by  college. Dejected college appealed at Division Bench of Delhi High court Mr.Justice Mukul Mudgal and S.Muralidhar. Division Bench again dismissed appeal citing stipulated selection committee mandatory even for minority aided colleges also.
     
   Date:01/08/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/08/01/stories/2006080116610100.htm 



    
---------------------------------
  
  Front Page 

Bench ruling on appointment of principals 
  Staff Reporter 
          Aided colleges cannot apply two different yardsticks 
  MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that Government aided colleges cannot apply two different yardsticks, one for existing teachers and another for outside contenders, for appointment of principals. 
  Referring to the University Grants Commission regulations which stipulate that the minimum requirement of 55 per cent marks in post-graduate examinations shall not be insisted upon the existing incumbents who are already in the university system, Justice P. Jyothimani said the relaxation had been given only for the benefit of persons who were already holding the post when the regulations came into force and not for fresh appointees. The ruling was passed while allowing a writ petition seeking to set aside the appointment of T. Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, who had scored less than 55 per cent marks, as principal of the American College here. 
  Though the college as well as the Madurai Kamaraj University contended that Dr. Jaikumar had put in 25 years of service and that the required qualification could be relaxed for the benefit of teachers already working in the institution, the Judge said, "Such construction will only result in an unnecessary discrimination among the equally situated people who are competing to the post of principal... Hence, such contention is not tenable." 
  Dealing with another aspect as to whether the UGC stipulations were applicable to minority colleges, the Judge said, "Qualification for the post of teachers cannot be compromised at any cost. Even a minority institution has to follow the qualification prescribed for the posts like that of principals, lecturers, etc."
  While invalidating the appointment of the incumbent principal of American College, the Judge directed the Governing Council of the college to initiate a fresh selection process. 
  The writ petition was filed by Arul Arasu Israel, who was working as a Reader in the Department of Religion, Philosophy and Sociology at the American College.
   
     
     
   
   
           
    Date:03/11/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/11/03/stories/2006110315590800.htm 
    
---------------------------------
  
  Tamil Nadu 

Court bars interviews for recruitment of lecturers 
  Special Correspondent 
          Petition challenges Government notification on selection criteria 
  CHENNAI : The Madras High Court has restrained the State Government from conducting interviews for recruiting 1,000 lecturers for appointment in Government arts, science and colleges of education in the State. 
  Passing interim orders on a writ petition filed by the Association for NET/SLET Qualified Teachers and Candidates, Justice P. Jyothimani ordered maintenance of status quo as on date while "making it clear that other proceedings can go on except the process of interview." 
  The Government Order proposing to recruit about 1,000 lecturers was issued on July 5, 2006, and a consequential notification was issued by the Higher Education Department on September 18, 2006. 
  According to the notification, candidates possessing teaching experience in universities and colleges were given one mark for each completed year, subject to the maximum of 15 marks; 12 marks for Ph.D completed before October 13, 2006; six marks for M.Phil/Ph.D with NET/SLET; and 10 marks for books or articles published at the rate of two marks per book and one mark per article. 
  Selection procedure 
  The petitioner-association said the non-application of mind by the authorities was reflected in the fact that no weightage in marks had been given to candidates possessing master's degree with NET/SLET eligibility. The GO and the prospectus treated unequals as equals, it said, adding that the present selection procedure was highly arbitrary and liable to be struck down. 
  The selection procedure contemplated only an interview without a written examination, it pointed out, and said the selection would not be proper and merit-based. 
  The petitioner-association also assailed a University Grants Commission notification making candidates without NET qualification eligible to become a lecturer, and said it was illegal and unjustified. 
  In June this year, the UGC came out with an amendment that candidates having Ph.D degree in the subjects concerned were exempted from NET qualification for teaching at post-graduate as well as under-graduate level. It exempted those having M.Phil degree from NET qualification for the purpose of teaching at under-graduate level. 
     
       
     
    

Date:08/11/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/11/08/stories/2006110817630200.htm 
    
---------------------------------
  
  Tamil Nadu - Madurai 

Attend the interview, recalcitrant Ph.D. holder told 
  Mohamed Imranullah S. 
  

  MADURAI: A. Sundara Mahalingam (57), a Ph.D. holder employed as a Superintendent in Madurai Kamaraj University in the administration section, wanted to become a lecturer in the Department of Bio-Energy. On condition that the selection committee should not interview him! 
  Either he abstained from attending the interview or refused to answer the questions put to him by the interviewers. When the university officials refused to appoint him, he resorted to litigation after litigation. 
  His bone of contention was that he should be absorbed as such without being tested for three qualities — aptitude for teaching and research, ability to communicate clearly and effectively and ability to analyse and discuss— as mandated under the University Grants Commission norms. He claimed that the selection committee was competent only to verify his certificates. 
  Passing orders on a batch of writ appeals pertaining to the matter, a Division Bench comprising Justice P.K. Misra and Justice G. Rajasuria said that the unassailable and indubitable fact was that the selection committee comprised high level academicians including the Vice-Chancellor in his capacity as the chairman of the committee, three experts in the concerned subject, head of the department and an academician nominated by the Chancellor. 
  When such was the case, the Judges said, "The core question arises as to why for verifying certificates and degrees such a high-level selection committee should be constituted at all. It is quite obvious that such verification of certificates is only a clerical job." 
  Pointing out that the term `UGC norms' connote the entire norms prescribed for selection, they said, "The respondent cannot call upon the court to truncate the procedure to his own benefits and apply only a part of UGC norms and leave the rest." 
  Hence, the Judges gave him one more opportunity to attend the interview and said that he was bound to answer the questions posed by the interviewers. 
  As a word of caution, they said that the university authorities should conduct the interview untrammelled by the bitter experience, if any, in view of the litigations initiated by the Superintendent since 2001. 
     
     
       
     
    

Date:12/11/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/11/12/stories/2006111201480500.htm 
    
---------------------------------
  
  Kerala - Kochi 

High Court quashes varsity appointment 
  Staff Reporter 
  KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has quashed the appointment of T.P. Sasikumar as Director of the Academic Staff College of Calicut University, finding that there was no quorum in the Selection Committee. 
  The judgment was passed by Justice A.K. Basheer while disposing of a writ petition filed by K.X. Joseph, Reader in the Department of Economics. 
  The court directed that no fresh notification need be issued. The University can constitute a proper Selection Committee in accordance with UGC Regulations for the purpose of interview and make fresh selection, the court observed. It was also clarified that till such time a fresh selection was made, it would be open to the University to make alternative arrangements. 
  The contention of Abraham Vakkanal, counsel for the petitioner, was that as per the UGC Regulations, the selection committee should have a quorum of five members. The selection Committee here had only three members, including the UGC nominee. Even the UGC nominee was absent and so there was no quorum. Accepting this argument, the court held that the interview conducted by the Selection Committee was not proper, in as much as the nominee of the UGC had not participated in the same. 
  Rank list 
  The court also held that the rank list prepared pursuant to the interview was quashed. As a result, the court quashed the order issued on September 30, 2005 allowing Dr. Sasikumar, a Scientist with the Advanced Data Processing Research Institute, Seconderabad, to take up the post. 
     
     
                       
           
    

Date:27/03/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/03/27/stories/2006032707090300.htm 
    
---------------------------------
  
  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, non-minority 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. 
     
   
  

 Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20061229/ab355a72/attachment.html