Time to effect change in Karnataka State Universities Act

The Governor of Karnataka is the Chancellor of all state-funded universities. Although this responsibility is not considered as one of the constitutional obligations, the University Grants Commission (UGC) had assigned this role to governors since 1956 in as much as the President of India is made the Visitor of all Central institutions of higher learning.

The Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (KSU Act) has ascribed several functions to the office of the Governor as Chancellor of which the appointment of Vice Chancellors (V-Cs) is a significant one. However, not all is well at the moment in the discharge of this noble task that has profound ramifications on the governance of higher education so crucial for sustenance of quality.

Gone are the days when only distinguished men of vision and intellect totally alienated from politics, were nominated as governors. Another equally contentious issue is the functioning of the Governor as Chancellor of dozens of state universities. That this academic responsibility, of late, is being largely circumvented, if not grossly misused, is illustrated by the following examples.

First, as per Section 14(2) of the Act, the Chancellor shall nominate a person to be part of the selection committee to identify suitable/eligible candidates who could be considered for appointment as V-C. Although the Act does not specifically prescribe the qualifications of such nominees, in the past, tradition has it that only distinguished people from the academia or judiciary or administration were chosen.

Alas!, nowadays the Chancellor is equivocally nominating people far below the rank of a Vice Chancellor. Such nominees were found to have neither proven academic credentials nor admirable accomplishments. A person of lower cadre participating as part of a team constituted to identify incumbents for a much higher position, is unheard of in our selection/search processes, be it in universities, corporates or industries.

This practice of diluting the established convention has significantly damaged the credibility of the selection committee. What is still more perplexing is that the practice of such undeserving nominations is being wantonly continued in spite of the strong resentments from many stakeholders including the Forum of Former Vice Chancellors of Karnataka.

Second, Section 14(4) of the Act lays down that the recommendation of a selection committee (formed for short listing V-C aspirants) with a panel of three eminent persons shall be submitted to the state government which in turn shall forward it to the Chancellor who shall appoint one person among them as V-C but with the “concurrence” of the state government.

Quite contrary to this provision of the Act, in the past few years, there were umpteen instances wherein the Chancellor resorted to appoint V-Cs on his own accord disregarding the healthy norm of ‘concurrence’. This action has baffled not only the legal experts and the state government but also the academics. The issue of serious concern here is the glaring violation of the provision of the Act of which the top custodian is the Chancellor!

Third, in the past, the Chancellor, soon after receiving the panel of eligible candidates from the government, subject to his satisfactory perusal of the proceedings, used to approve one candidate and issue the appointment order within few hours. Of course, the Chancellor with the concurrence of the state government could call for a second panel if he considers it necessary for some valid reasons.

In such an event, the search committee shall submit a second panel (again through the state government) which shall be final. Against these established, transparent and expeditious norms, the Chancellor nowadays takes weeks, months and even years to take a decision.

Unfortunate vacuum

In fact, this is one of the reasons for several V-Cs’ posts lying vacant for prolonged periods resulting in unfortunate vacuum in the vitally important academic leadership. Moreover, the inordinate delays have given rise to great deal of suspicion and speculation, not to mention lobbying through powerful and influential external factors. What was once a healthy practice and convention is being vitiated beyond comprehension.

Fourth, Section 69 of the Act provides for the award of honorary degrees (honoris causa - D.Sc. / LL.D) to eminent persons in recognition of their outstanding contribution to society in various fields. The authority to recommend stalwarts for such distinction to the Chancellor was (and is still supposed to be) the prerogative of the University Syndicate. Again, in blatant contravention of this procedure, the Chancellor has unilaterally abrogated the privilege of the Syndicate by constituting a committee to identify (not more than three) deserving candidates.

Here again, the composition of such committees is so downgraded that ordinary professors (or those below this position) are inducted. Nowhere in the world an ordinary person sits on judgement about the suitability of candidates for coveted honours. Also, the selection of recipients of honorary degrees by the Chancellor is not always based on exemplary merit and yeoman service. In academic circles and in the opinion of the general public, some of the recent choices have given rise to widespread disappointment and apprehension.

Fifth, the Chancellor does not hold periodic parleys/interactions with the V-Cs to discuss the serious problems (especially the dearth of faculty and paucity of finances) confronting higher and professional education. Besides, the two nominees of the Chancellor on the Syndicate are no different from those of the government in antecedents.

In view of the large number of state universities (it is on the rise these days because of greater demand for higher education) as well as the changing perception of higher education against the backdrop of globalisation, there is wisdom in setting free the governor as Chancellor.

The KSU Act has remained static for the last 19 years. It has to be amended early to incorporate several changes including the desirability of a separate Chancellor for each state university, if UGC permits. Perhaps, it should be mentioned in this context that each Central University has a separate Chancellor in addition to the Visitor. Our state private universities and Deemed-to-be Universities also have separate Chancellors.

(The writer is former Vice Chancellor, University of Mysore)