Govt must revamp VC appointments

With the recent suggestion by former minister and senior Congressman Prof B K Chandrashekar for a Standing Committee consisting of heads of premier institutions like the IISc, the IIM-Bangalore, and the National Law School of India University to oversee the selection of vice chancellors to public universities in the state, the debate over the issue of the appointment of VCs has regained prominence.

It is imperative that the Government of Karnataka take a serious look at this issue, not only for improving the governance of our public universities (the state of private universities is no better), but also to rectify the popular perception of universities in the state.

Let me briefly recall the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act (2000) in this regard. The Act calls for constituting a search committee consisting of four members: one nominated by the Chancellor, one by the state government, one nominee of the Syndicate, and a nominee of the University Grants Commission.

The state government shall appoint one of the members of the committee as the chairman of the Search Committee.” In reality, the state government nominee is made chairman of the search committee.

The committee scrutinises and assesses the applications from candidates applying for the VC post and submits a panel of three names, listed alphabetically, to the government. The state government forwards the panel to the Chancellor, who appoints one of the members from the panel, keeping in mind considerations of merit, equity, and social justice, and with the concurrence of the state government, as Vice Chancellor.

Unfortunately, media reports frequently highlight the appointment of VCs who are seen as ‘palatable’ to the authorities, underscoring the urgent need to revamp the appointment process.

In this context, it is useful to examine the provisions of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 regarding the appointment of heads of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs). In the chapter dealing with effective governance and leadership in higher education, the NEP advocates establishing a Board of Governors (BOG) in HEIs, comprised of highly qualified, competent, and committed individuals free from external intereference, responsible for making all appointments, including those of the head of HEIs. The NEP recommends necessary legislation in this regard by the central and state governments “to remove HEIs from the shackles of external interference.” Further, it emphasises that “the leaders of HEIs will have to demonstrate strong alignment with constitutional values, pluralism, and social commitment.” 

The NEP document also states that the selection of heads of institutions “shall be carried out in a rigorous, impartial, merit- and competency-based process led by an Eminent Expert Committee, constituted by the BOG (not the government).” Thus, NEP envisages a fair mechanism for selecting VCs. However, the central universities are not following this procedure, even after three years of NEP 2020.

The present government has two options:

1. It can follow the NEP provisions. However, it is unlikely that the state government will accept it. Thus, the option would remain an idealistic one.

2. A more practical option is that instead of appointing search committees every time the post of a VC falls vacant, the government can appoint a search committee or standing committee, as the Congress leader BKC has suggested, for a five-year term. This committee would consist of two eminent retired scientists, one each drawn from the IISc and IIT, a representative from the industry known for philanthropic contributions, and a respected public intellectual. This committee should scrutinise applications, conduct interactive meetings with a short-listed group of five applicants, and ultimately submit a panel of three names to the government based on merit, social justice, and gender equity. The government should then vet and recommend the list to the Chancellor for a final appointment.

However, niether the government nor the Chancellor should have the power to reject the list and request a new panel. The Chancellor can finally appoint one of the persons from the panel as the VC of the university where the post is vacant. This approach necessitates an amendment to the 2000 Act. Though crucial, the amendment is difficult as it restrains the power of the government and the Chancellor in the appointment of VCs. At a time when the government is formulating its own education policy, bringing about the changes in the 2000 Act would be a much-needed step.

This is also aligned to the government’s goal of elevating public universities to national and international stature. 

(The writer is a former dean, Faculty of Arts, Bangalore University)