JOIN USK’taka Higher Education Bill: A right step, but more needs to be done
The Karnataka government has prepared the comprehensive draft of a Bill to usher in significant changes in higher education with special reference to the recommendations of the National Education Policy (NEP-20).
The Bill is currently being circulated among all stakeholders soliciting responses for its improvement. In this article, certain aspects of management/governance that need reformation to rejuvenate our universities are addressed.
Currently the governor, ex-officio, is the chancellor of all state universities, now numbering more than 30. The question is, how effective is the governor as chancellor in the governance of state universities? The answer, without prejudice is, ‘least effective’.
The governor in the present dispensation rarely provides any useful inputs, guidance, counselling and advice for the betterment of a given university. In fact, it is for this reason (apart from political misalignment) the legislatures in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have recently mooted and approved Bills to dissociate governors from being chancellors of state universities. Hence, it is time to think of a separate chancellor for each university as is the case in central, state, private and deemed-to-be universities. Unfortunately, the Drafting Committee (herein referred to as the Committee) has failed to take cognisance of this important aspect. When one speaks of remodelling, it should necessarily stem from the top.
Pro-Chancellor: Assigning this position, ex-officio, to the minister for higher education, regardless of the abilities and educational background of the person (recently, the Karnataka Cabinet had a non-matriculate minister holding this portfolio) is simply ridiculous, if not totally absurd. The only defined function of a pro-chancellor is to preside over convocations in the absence of the chancellor although, at present, there is enough provision to carry out this function in such events. The post of pro-chancellor, therefore, is quite unnecessary. Here again, the Committee has not addressed the issue properly. The pro-chancellor’s position has to be summarily dropped.
Board of Governors: The proposal to have a board of governors (BOG) is indeed an excellent one. It should be represented by doyens of industries, business honchos, gurus of management and iconic persons from the public. The chairperson and enlightened members of the BOG should constitute a kind of ‘think tank’ and shall ‘advise’ the VC and the board of management (BOM) on all matters of development, teaching, research and extension. In effect, the BoG should empower but not weaken the office of the VC.
Vice Chancellor: As currently exists, the VC shall continue to be CEO (chief executive officer) and supremo of the university. As a leader, he shall not be subordinate to the chairperson of BoG. He shall interact with all the university authorities in framing major policies and programmes. The BoG could play a supplementary/ complementary role in this process. The VC should have, apart from the formal qualifications and experience prescribed by the concerned Act and those recommended by the UGC, good measure of ‘competence’ (to be ascertained by the search-cum-selection committee (SSC) at the time of shortlisting of candidates) to deal with the problems of students, faculty and non-teaching staff. That the BoG has a decisive role in the appointment of VC is certainly a welcome change. The Committee has done a commendable job in elucidating the procedure to be adopted in appointment of a VC.
Further, provisions for inviting nominations of highly deserving candidates by the SSC, tabulation of profiles of a large number applicants in a proper format by a screening committee, shortlisting eligible candidates in the ratio of 1:3 (nine candidates in all) and personal interaction with shortlisted candidates before finalisation of the panel of three names (not elaborated by the Committee) shall be defined by statutes. Moreover, every VC of a new university shall be appointed only by the BoG to avoid favouritism, nepotism and communalism. It is very important to ensure that the VC shall be the chairperson of all Boards of Appointments to recruit the faculty and the staff. This authority would enable the VC to make choice-based selection with reference to the requirement of specialists to teach specialised courses. The BoG need not be involved with appointments. However, if there are any irregularities in the selection process, the BoG can certainly take suitable remedial measures including action on the VC.
Pro-Vice Chancellor: The addition of this position is yet another progressive step taken by the Committee. Such a post exists in many other public and private universities. The incumbent (apart from providing a second-line leadership) can oversee the activities such as admissions, affiliations, examinations, litigations, students’ welfare, athletic and cultural programmes. These functions must be defined by statutes. In the presence of an effective Pro-VC, the VC would be set free to focus more on development, collaboration, internationalisation, research and extension.
Deans of Schools: The deans, as chief academic officers, should have an office with secretarial assistance. They should be involved as defined in statutes, in admissions, curricula development, faculty appointments, coordination of interdisciplinary teaching, research and extension activities of the concerned schools. The position of a dean should carry much academic weight and cannot be only a titular post as at present. The term of office of the dean should be two-three years.
Registrar: The proposed tenure of three years implies that the incumbent will be appointed on deputation of senior faculty from postgraduate departments. However, care must be taken by the VC to invite someone, preferably from the department of public administration or business management. Because, administrative acumen and managerial capabilities are more important than mere academic credentials or seniority. As defined in statutes, the registrar should function like a chief operating officer in a corporate body.
To summarise, while the Draft Committee has done a commendable job, a lot of inputs are required for transforming the existing archaic ‘administrative set-up’ into a modern ‘management system’. The fact that the present Karnataka State Universities Act has not been amended in the last 22 years shows that a radical and progressive change is needed in higher education.
(The author is former vice chancellor, University of Mysore)