It was Sir Charles Wood who, in 1854, had recommended the establishment of three universities in India. Consequently, three universities were founded in 1857 in the port cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. These universities were started on the model of the London University, consisting of a Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and a Senate. In another significant recommendation, Wood had suggested a gradual withdrawal of the government from the direct management of universities and colleges. Though an attempt was made to implement this recommendation towards the end of the nineteenth century to keep them free from bureaucracy, it was forestalled due to some impracticality of the time.
Initially, the Vice-Chancellor was an honorary position. Several eminent persons had served the universities as honorary Vice-Chancellors during the early days. Many of them were from professions other than academia. This practice continued for quite a while. The issue of the appointment of Vice-Chancellor was debated at length by the University Education Commission (UEC) in 1948-49. Some members of the Commission were of the view that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor should be taken out of the hands of the university system and given to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). It was not accepted by the Commission since it was a minority view. The Commission in its wisdom thought that the job of the Vice-Chancellor was a full-time job and that it should be entrusted to a person who could command confidence and respect from across the academia and society and who could prove to be a real conscience keeper of the university. The Commission suggested that the Executive Council of the university should send just one name to the Chancellor for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor and if the Chancellor did not find it suitable, it could be referred back to the Executive Council. It meant that, under no circumstances, the Chancellor should initiate the process on his own. The commission had expressed serious concerns about the governance of the university system and made numerous recommendations about the reorganization of the Executive Councils, Senates and Syndicates for the purpose of ensuring effective governance and qualitative improvement in higher education.
The recommendations of the UEC were examined by the Education Commission (EC) in 1964-66. Though the EC had endorsed the recommendations of the UEC regarding the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, somehow it took a more practical view during the prevailing conditions and suggested to follow the pattern of the University of Delhi. It recommended that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor be made by the Visitor from amongst a panel of three names to be prepared by a Search Committee consisting of three persons. Of them, two would be nominees of the Executive Council and one would be the nominee of the Visitor who would act as the Chairperson of the Search Committee. The EC also examined the Acts of other state universities and suggested to continue with the existing provisions with a caveat that the members of the Search Committees should be known for their eminence and integrity and must ensure impartiality in the preparation of the panel. The EC had also suggested that the Search Committee should informally ascertain the requirements of the university before zeroing in on the panel.
The EC made several other pertinent recommendations, some of which have not been implemented yet. The EC had recommended that the term of the office of the Vice-Chancellor should be five years and that a person should not be given more than two terms in the same university. There are still a number of states wherein the term of the office of the Vice-Chancellor continues to be three years, which is too short a period to translate the vision into reality. The EC seemed to have believed that like Caesar’s wife, the office of the Vice-Chancellor should be above suspicion. It had recommended that there should not be any qualitative difference between the service conditions of a Professor and a Vice-Chancellor. The EC was against the idea of providing free accommodation with free electricity and water to the Vice-Chancellor as it would undermine the principles of morality on the campus. Fifty-four years down the line, this practice has been continuing with unabated vigour.
The EC had also cautioned about the incredible risks involved in delaying the appointment of Vice-Chancellors as it brings decision making to a grinding halt. The EC had recommended that the process of appointment of the Vice-Chancellor should be initiated well before the expiry of the term of the sitting Vice-Chancellor so that the new person can take over without any loss of time. The current practice, however, negates the implementation of this recommendation in a number of cases even after a long wait. Such delays sometimes take much longer, running into several months and even over a year. This recommendation of the EC has now been reiterated in the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020.
It is heartening to note that the policy has underlined the significance of leadership in the university system. It has made a special mention that “leadership positions shall not remain vacant, but rather an overlapping time period during transitions in leadership shall be the norm to ensure the smooth running of institutions’’. This is a very vital recommendation and needs to be implemented—the sooner the better.
More than six months have gone by since the NEP was passed but this particular recommendation appears to have not yet caught the attention that it deserves. There remain as many as 16 central universities, out of a total of 44 under the purview of the UGC, without the regular Vice-Chancellors. Some of them have been without the regular Vice-Chancellor for almost a year. In a couple of cases, the panel of names has been awaiting final approval for months. Such an inordinate delay in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors is quite concerning. It not only impedes the progress of ongoing projects but also colossally disturbs the plan of introduction of new programs and the recruitment of faculty and staff.
Since a considerable amount of time and effort has gone into the formulation of the NEP and plans are afoot for its implementation, this is the most opportune time to initiate a fresh and engaging discourse about ways to improve the process of the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. The current procedure, at times, is mired in scandals and controversies resulting in individual as well as mass dismissals of Vice-Chancellors which is absolutely disgraceful. There are two important issues related to the subject. One is about the competence and integrity of the probable contestants and another is about the timely culmination and fairness of selection procedure.
Universities are considered to be the most trusted and enduring organisations in the history of the world. Constitutionally, they are independent and self-governing institutions. Ideally, the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor should be the privilege of the university. If it is done well, then most common problems like unexpected delays, lobbying, payoffs, one-sidedness, nepotism, favouritism, dogmatism, etc. can be put to rest and universities will have the kind of leadership that they justly deserve.
This would require necessary amendments in the composition of the Executive Council and certain procedural changes in the selection process. The Executive Council should have adequate representation from all the stakeholders including students, alumni and eminent members of the society. The size of the Council should be reasonably limited to ensure efficient governance. The Council should seek applications or nominations from people with exceptional leadership credentials coupled with integrity, values of fairness and a real sense of commitment to the job.
The Executive Council should invite the shortlisted candidates to share their vision in specially organised sessions with the members of the faculty and staff, wherein they may be rated by everyone on the basis of their performance against a checklist of criteria for the purpose of identifying the most capable and suitable person from the talent pool. Subsequently, the Executive Council can use this feedback whilst making its assessment about individual candidates. The final selection may be made by the Executive Council through a secret ballot. This process will help the Council choose the “first-among-equals”. On the one hand, it would save the precious time of the Visitor and the Chancellors by cutting down on avoidable hassles, and on the other, universities would also not remain headless for an indefinite period of time like the 16 Central Universities at present.
The writer is former Chairman, UGC. The views expressed are personal.
