Govt. denies attempt to clip Chancellor's wings

By Our Special Correspondent

BANGALORE, NOV. 25. The Government today denied in the Legislative Assembly the charge that the Karnataka State Universities Bill, which seeks to consolidate the law relating to universities, had been introduced with an ulterior motive because of differences between the Chief Minister or the Government and the authority appointing the Vice-Chancellor.

The allegation that the Bill was a result of the Government's frustration that it could not get its nominees appointed as vice- chancellors of Dharwad and Mysore universities was denied first by the Home Minister, Mr. Mallikarjun Kharge, who said reports in this regard were baseless.

Later, the Higher Education Minister, Dr. Parameshwar, denied that the Government had made any proposal or recommendation for the posts of Vice-Chancellor of the two universities and thus, there was no question of difference of opinion on the matter.

It was during the discussion on the Bill that the allegation was made by the JD (U) Floor Leader, Mr. P.G.R.Sindhia, the Deputy Leader of the BJP, Mr. D.V.Sadananda Gowda, Mr. A.Ramdas and Mr. Visvesvara Hegde (both BJP), but the Speaker, Mr. M.V.Venkatappa, ordered removal of the reference to the appointing authority even as Mr. Sindhia sought a review as his reference was not unparliamentary.

During the discussion, the Opposition demanded that the Bill be referred to a joint select committee. The members felt that the Bill centralised powers in the Government even to the extent of depriving the Governor's power to appoint vice-chancellors.

Mr. B.Somashekar (JD-U) wondered if members could be prevented from referring to what had appeared in the press, but the Chair said so many things appeared in the press and it was his duty to expunge references to them unless members had sufficient proof.

Mr. Hegde, however, asserted that the Bill was the result of the differences and this did not bring credit to the Government. It was then that Dr. Parameshwar said there was no question of difference as the Government had not sent any proposal or recommendation (on the appointment of the vice-chancellors).

There were strong protests from the Treasury benches when Mr. Hegde made certain observations while sticking to his point. The member disapproved political intervention in education and wanted the Bill to be referred to the Joint Selection Committee.

Earlier, Mr. Sadananda Gowda described the Bill as the "blackest" in the democratic history of the State. The Bill intended to concentrate powers in the Government and had its origin in the failure of the Government to get its own nominees as vice- chancellors of Dharwad and Mysore universities. The powers of the Governor were being curtailed under the Bill and there should be a public debate.

Mr. Ramdas disputed that the Bill was based on the Navaneetha Rao Commission report as it had not recommended abolition of the Senate. The commission had said there should be 10 per cent increase in grants to universities once in three years, but the Government had reduced it by 15 per cent.

The member also questioned the Government on the need for the provision to have its nominee on the search committee to recommend the panel for the post of Vice-Chancellor and requiring the Governor, who is the Chancellor, to appoint as Vice- Chancellor a person recommended by the Government. He, however, welcomed the provision for inter-university transfer of employees.

Referring to a case in which an engineering college had been allowed to be started in a distillery because of the influence of a minister, Mr. Ramdas said at this rate there was no need for the Chancellor or the Vice-Chancellor. There was also a case where the Government had given the feasibility report for medical colleges ignoring the report of the Local Inspection Committee (LIC) though two of them did not have 300-bed hospitals.

Mr. Ramdas complained that in one case an undergraduate had been made a member of the Academic Council, and said by taking away certain powers of the Chancellor and indulging in politics, the Government was trying to convert the universities into Congress bhavan.

The Congress(I) member, Mr. A.S.Guruswami, opposed elections in the universities as this was poisoning young minds. He welcomed the provision for inter-university transfer of staff and wanted it to be extended to municipal corporations.

Mr. Sindhia referred to the blackmailing tactics by teachers during evaluation of answer scripts, and private tuitions, and said there was need to control them. He demanded a CoD inquiry into a case in which a candidate had been given higher marks by a lecturer after accepting money. He questioned the move to take over the power of the Chancellor to appoint vice-chancellors and entrusting it to the Chief Minister.

Mr. C.R.Neelakantppa (Congress-I) described the Bill as historic. Mr. P.H.Poojar (BJP) wanted the Government to reconsider the Bill, which in the name of bringing in reforms was trying to interfere in the domain of the universities. Mr. V.Somanna (Congress-I) wanted the Government to control the menace of private tuitions by college teachers.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Council gives nod for Hindu Religious
           Institutions Bill
Next     : National award instituted for classical music