Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

Based on the Radhakrishnan Committee report, provisions were made in the UGC Act 1956 for declaring higher institutions of learning with quality as deemed universities. This has resulted in the unjustifiable growth of deemed universities at the cost of quality and the new guidelines seem to accelerate this growth. In the last five years, three committees were constituted for drafting the new guidelines.

Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956 empowers the University Grants Commission to recommend to the Government of India institutions to be declared as deemed universities. At the same time one should remember that many statutory councils have since come into existence by way of Central Acts. These councils are to be respected at least to the extent the Acts demand for.

The proposed guidelines recommend that an applicant institution will be inspected by a committee constituted by the UGC with a representative from the respective statutory councils. This is a gross violation of laws laid down. For instance Section 10 (t) of the AICTE Act reads: “Advise the Commission for declaring any institutions imparting technical education as deemed universities.”

The AICTE dutifully prescribed detailed guidelines for conferment of deemed university status for technical institutions as early as 1996 and subsequently revised during 1999-2000. The AICTE Act does not provide for any delegation of authority and going by it, in respect of technical institutions, it is only the AICTE that should recommend to the UGC for consideration of deemed university status.

For example, the original AICTE guidelines stipulated that the institution should be engaged in conducting UG and PG degree for a period of not less than 10 years and 5 years from the graduation of the first batch respectively.

In the 31st meeting of the executive committee of the AICTE, the Chairperson of the UGC (as the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of AICTE) suggested a single expert committee jointly constituted by the UGC and AICTE to visit the institution for considering the proposal of deemed university status.

Subsequently in 1999, while revising the guidelines, the AICTE proposed a committee consisting of two experts to be nominated from the UGC, two experts from the AICTE, one official of the UGC, one official of the MHRD and with Adviser, AICTE, as member secretary of the committee.

But the present guidelines of the UGC, even in respect of technical institutions, have not taken note of the AICTE norms. Similarly the minimum requirement in regard to staff, research work, etc., has not been prescribed in the revised guidelines of the UGC, which is a serious lapse.

Originally in 1995, the AICTE laid down norms and standards for the establishment of educational institutions (this writer was a member of the committee). Even today these guidelines are in force. The proposed guidelines have overlooked the norms and standards laid down by various statutory authorities such as the MCI, AICTE, etc.

The proposed guidelines prescribe two acres of land in metropolitan areas, five acres in urban areas and 10 acres in non-urban areas. The MCI has prescribed a minimum of 25 acres of land for the establishment of a medical college and the AICTE prescribes that new engineering institutions in non-metro locations will have a land area of about 20 acres before starting, and in the case of metropolitan areas, the land should be available at least three times of the constructed area.

In respect of de-novo institutions, the proposed guidelines pave the way for “teaching shops” which the Supreme Court in 2005 struck down in the case of 112 illegal universities in Chattisgarh.

The UGC must also refrain from the practice of appointing review committees even before the original inspection committee’s report is placed before the Commission/MHRD. The onus must be on the UGC to ensure a gap of at least two years before entertaining any review or fresh consideration.

The attempt to bring in other “sister institutions” within the ambit of the declared deemed university has to be examined in detail and it should not be a backdoor entry mechanism. Every application under this category has to be considered as an independent one for conferment of deemed university status.

There should not be any dilution in the requirements just because it is being brought under the ambit of the parent deemed university as it has to be borne in mind that the character of the constituent unit is on a par with the parent university for all purposes and hence the same amount of caution, if not more, must be exercised.

The government is committed to increase admission in higher education and the proposed guidelines run contrary to the government’s policy with regard to distance education programmes. The proposed guidelines preventing deemed universities from conducting distance education programmes is not only against the provisions of the law but also against UGC’s own regulations and the National Policy on Education.

The UGC has to take bold action against erring universities, both government and private, rather than banning and preventing deemed universities from conducting distance education programmes.

The UGC has a surprising policy of selective funding to universities in the private sector without a uniform policy. The proposed guidelines continue with the existing discrimination, which is not in the interest of institutions that genuinely deserve funding.

The UGC before recommending any institution for conferment of deemed university status, to maintain standard and quality, should ensure that:

The institution should have been in existence for a minimum period of 15 years as laid down by the AICTE (in the case of engineering institutions);

The institution is placed in the autonomous category by the respective university and the State government for a minimum period of five years so as to assess and evaluate the performance in regard to academic work, evaluations, research and introduction of innovative programmes;

No objection certificate from the respective university and the State government is obtained;

Independent recommendations from the statutory councils concerned before constituting a committee for inspection are obtained;

Maximum caution is exercised while bringing institutions under the ambit of parent deemed university.

Any guidelines replacing the existing ones must be for the betterment of standards and not to dilute them further.

(The writer is Vice-Chancellor, SASTRA University. He can be reached at sethuraman@sastra.edu)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail