In the little less than three years he has been the vice chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University, Zameeruddin Shah has made a fair number of alarmingly loose, at times benighted, remarks that have not just stirred controversies but also made us think about what kind of persons lead our universities.
To the displeasure of many, Shah has called the teachers of AMU namak haraam on the eve of Teacher’s Day, urged the girls of the university to wear proper and decent clothes, and of course made that colossal faux pas a few months ago – on the question of allowing the girls of the University’s Women’s College into the central library, he expressed misgivings, arguing that their entry would attract four times as many boys and result in a spatial crisis. The opprobrium that ensued from the last remark was unsurprisingly enormous.
These, along with a number of similar incidents, have steadily compromised Shah’s moral authority to continue functioning as the vice chancellor. However, after the Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan vs KV Jeyaraj and others on March 11, 2015, it is Shah’s legal authority that has come under serious threat.
Mathivanan, then vice chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University, had appealed in the apex court against a Madras High Court judgement which quashed her appointment to the post citing non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the UGC Regulations, 2010.
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court judgement and upheld Kalyani’s appointment on the grounds that the Tamil Nadu government had not adopted the UGC Regulations. It also held that in the case of universities and colleges coming under the purview of state legislation, the application of UGC Regulations is subject to their adoption and implementation by the state government. It further said that even when the UGC Regulations have not been adopted, they shall still exist in directory capacity, if not mandatory capacity.
Why should this worry Shah?
Although the apex court ruled in favour of Mathivanan, the judgement still holds implications of profound import for Zameeruddin Shah. Shah’s appointment has been challenged in the Allahabad High Court for being in violation of the UGC Regulations and it is likely that the Supreme Court ruling is going to inform the decision in his case. The apex court judgement notes that the UGC Regulations have a “binding effect” on the universities to which they apply, and are “mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central Universities”. AMU, a central university, had adopted the UGC Regulations in 2010 (vide office memo dated December 6, 2010, issued from the office of the university’s registrar).
The two cardinal questions that arise then are: (a) How constitutional is Shah’s appointment in the light of the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations, and, (b) Does the ambit of the term “academic staff” extend to the vice chancellor of the university.
The UGC Regulations make it explicitly clear that “the Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician with a minimum of 10 years of experience as professor in a university system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation”. This provision suggests Shah’s ineligibility for vice chancellorship as his only teaching experience has been at the Officers’ Training Academy, Chennai, from 1972-74, where he trained college students to earn a commission in the army. Other credentials constituting his supposed academic experience are memberships of governing bodies of army institutes and schools.
The UGC Regulations also states, “The Universities/State Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities concerned within 6 months of adoption of these Regulations.” The Aligarh Muslim University never made the requisite amendments in its act/statutes.
Holes in the appointment
Shah’s appointment is dubious not only because of his non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria but also because the process through which he was chosen is inconsistent with the UGC Regulations.
In Aligarh Muslim University, instead of a search committee recommending names to the Visitor (as specified in the UGC Regulations), the Executive Council of the university sends names to the AMU Court, the varsity’s supreme governing body, which in turn recommends names to the Visitor. But if, as the Supreme Court held, the UGC Regulations have a “binding effect” on universities, the constitutionality of Shah’s appointment appears disputable.
Commenting on the issue, the university’s public relations officer, Rahat Abrar, said that AMU is an autonomous institution governed by an Act of Parliament and Shah’s appointment process was congruous with the provisions of the Act. He refused to comment on the apex court’s ruling though.
How academic is the academic officer?
Coming to the other question, the bone of contention is whether the vice chancellor is only an officer of the university or if he is also a part of the academic staff.
Interestingly, the original title of the UGC Regulations under which the minimum qualifications for appointment of vice chancellors have been provided is “University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010”. Therefore, the rubric under which the post of vice chancellor has been arrayed is “other academic staff” and there has been no use of the term officer in the title.
In Mathivanan’s case the Supreme Court ruled that the post of vice chancellor is “not a teaching post but that of an officer of the University”. This judgement, however, has been made in the light of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965, which describes the vice chancellor as “the academic head and Principal executive officer of the University”. The UGC Act, 1956, and UGC Regulations, 2000, are silent in this regard, but the UGC Regulations, 2010, states that the vice chancellor should be a “distinguished academician”. The AMU Act, 1981, by which the university is governed, describes the vice chancellor as an “academic officer”, and also vests in him the power to convene meetings of the Academic Council. Somehow, the word academic has persistently found its way into every discourse concerning the vice chancellor.
It is now for the powers that be to decide whether the purview of the term would include or exclude the vice chancellor. In this aspect too, the legality of Shah’s appointment hangs by a thread.
The debate and governmental emphasis on academicians being appointed as heads of universities finally seems to be coming to fruition. And with Shah’s fate hanging in limbo, all eyes are set on the Allahabad High Court judgement, which is expected soon. Whichever course the law takes, it appears that Zameeruddin Shah might be the last non-academician to serve as vice chancellor of an Indian university.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
To the displeasure of many, Shah has called the teachers of AMU namak haraam on the eve of Teacher’s Day, urged the girls of the university to wear proper and decent clothes, and of course made that colossal faux pas a few months ago – on the question of allowing the girls of the University’s Women’s College into the central library, he expressed misgivings, arguing that their entry would attract four times as many boys and result in a spatial crisis. The opprobrium that ensued from the last remark was unsurprisingly enormous.
These, along with a number of similar incidents, have steadily compromised Shah’s moral authority to continue functioning as the vice chancellor. However, after the Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan vs KV Jeyaraj and others on March 11, 2015, it is Shah’s legal authority that has come under serious threat.
Mathivanan, then vice chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University, had appealed in the apex court against a Madras High Court judgement which quashed her appointment to the post citing non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the UGC Regulations, 2010.
The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court judgement and upheld Kalyani’s appointment on the grounds that the Tamil Nadu government had not adopted the UGC Regulations. It also held that in the case of universities and colleges coming under the purview of state legislation, the application of UGC Regulations is subject to their adoption and implementation by the state government. It further said that even when the UGC Regulations have not been adopted, they shall still exist in directory capacity, if not mandatory capacity.
Why should this worry Shah?
Although the apex court ruled in favour of Mathivanan, the judgement still holds implications of profound import for Zameeruddin Shah. Shah’s appointment has been challenged in the Allahabad High Court for being in violation of the UGC Regulations and it is likely that the Supreme Court ruling is going to inform the decision in his case. The apex court judgement notes that the UGC Regulations have a “binding effect” on the universities to which they apply, and are “mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central Universities”. AMU, a central university, had adopted the UGC Regulations in 2010 (vide office memo dated December 6, 2010, issued from the office of the university’s registrar).
The two cardinal questions that arise then are: (a) How constitutional is Shah’s appointment in the light of the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations, and, (b) Does the ambit of the term “academic staff” extend to the vice chancellor of the university.
The UGC Regulations make it explicitly clear that “the Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician with a minimum of 10 years of experience as professor in a university system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation”. This provision suggests Shah’s ineligibility for vice chancellorship as his only teaching experience has been at the Officers’ Training Academy, Chennai, from 1972-74, where he trained college students to earn a commission in the army. Other credentials constituting his supposed academic experience are memberships of governing bodies of army institutes and schools.
The UGC Regulations also states, “The Universities/State Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities concerned within 6 months of adoption of these Regulations.” The Aligarh Muslim University never made the requisite amendments in its act/statutes.
Holes in the appointment
Shah’s appointment is dubious not only because of his non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria but also because the process through which he was chosen is inconsistent with the UGC Regulations.
In Aligarh Muslim University, instead of a search committee recommending names to the Visitor (as specified in the UGC Regulations), the Executive Council of the university sends names to the AMU Court, the varsity’s supreme governing body, which in turn recommends names to the Visitor. But if, as the Supreme Court held, the UGC Regulations have a “binding effect” on universities, the constitutionality of Shah’s appointment appears disputable.
Commenting on the issue, the university’s public relations officer, Rahat Abrar, said that AMU is an autonomous institution governed by an Act of Parliament and Shah’s appointment process was congruous with the provisions of the Act. He refused to comment on the apex court’s ruling though.
How academic is the academic officer?
Coming to the other question, the bone of contention is whether the vice chancellor is only an officer of the university or if he is also a part of the academic staff.
Interestingly, the original title of the UGC Regulations under which the minimum qualifications for appointment of vice chancellors have been provided is “University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010”. Therefore, the rubric under which the post of vice chancellor has been arrayed is “other academic staff” and there has been no use of the term officer in the title.
In Mathivanan’s case the Supreme Court ruled that the post of vice chancellor is “not a teaching post but that of an officer of the University”. This judgement, however, has been made in the light of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965, which describes the vice chancellor as “the academic head and Principal executive officer of the University”. The UGC Act, 1956, and UGC Regulations, 2000, are silent in this regard, but the UGC Regulations, 2010, states that the vice chancellor should be a “distinguished academician”. The AMU Act, 1981, by which the university is governed, describes the vice chancellor as an “academic officer”, and also vests in him the power to convene meetings of the Academic Council. Somehow, the word academic has persistently found its way into every discourse concerning the vice chancellor.
It is now for the powers that be to decide whether the purview of the term would include or exclude the vice chancellor. In this aspect too, the legality of Shah’s appointment hangs by a thread.
The debate and governmental emphasis on academicians being appointed as heads of universities finally seems to be coming to fruition. And with Shah’s fate hanging in limbo, all eyes are set on the Allahabad High Court judgement, which is expected soon. Whichever course the law takes, it appears that Zameeruddin Shah might be the last non-academician to serve as vice chancellor of an Indian university.
