‘The winning university of tomorrow needs to be innovative and business-like as well as deeply philosophical. This calls for considerably liberal gateways for leadership positions’
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
There have been reservations expressed from various quarters on the Draft University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2025, that have been published for discussion.
The main reservations pertain to the regulations that indicate the method of appointment of Vice-Chancellors and the broadening of experience prescribed. Both need to be distinguished from the point of view of dynamic elements in a fast-changing federal polity as well as the legal precedents that arise from a catena of decisions by the Supreme Court of India. This article examines both issues in context.
A lesser role for the State executive
First, it must be noted that the Court has considerably reduced the role of the State executive in the selection of Vice-Chancellors (V-C) of State-funded universities. Many States continue to have their nominees in the search-cum-selection committees under such provisions in the State statutes. The Court has consistently and categorically ruled that the State executive should have no role either with the process or the recommendation leading to the appointment to be made by the Chancellor. This has been necessitated by the co-validity of the UGC’s 2018 regulations (which mandated only its representative in the selection committee) leading to interpretations by States that the rest of the composition could continue as per the State legislations.
In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs The State Of Gujarat (2019), Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee (2022), Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. (2022) and Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth and Anr. vs The Chancellor Kannur University and Ors. (2023), the Court has enunciated that members of the State executive shall not be members of the search-cum-selection committee and evidence of such influence would invalidate the process, ab initio void, irrespective of whether the appointee was qualified or not. The resultant draft regulations of 2025 limit the search-cum-selection committee to highly qualified persons who have held the office of V-C or equivalent, to be nominated by the Chancellor of the university, the executive body of the university and the UGC. The Statutes of the Central Universities also reveal a similar pattern — where the nominees of the Visitor of the University and the UGC, and not the officers or representatives of the central executive, conduct the selection. Nevertheless, the State executives have a point that State universities are largely a product of statute of the State Legislatures and that a majority of their funds and efforts have been provided by the State executive. Their mandate also involves regional development and provincial priorities in research and advancement. They have to necessarily feed the State innovation ecosystem and work in tandem with the government scientific and development establishment. The central universities enrol far too low to meet requirements while private universities could be priced out of the reach of many.
Options to consider
In this context, there are two ways to look at the difficulties stated.
Alternatively, the representative of the university executive can be a consensus candidate who is informally approved by the State executive which is amply represented in the university executive. From the present judicial precedent, it cannot be a government officer or a person who enjoys the direct patronage of the government. A suitably independent and former eminent academic who is also acceptable to the government could well be nominated by the University executive.
However, it is clear that in the light of the Kannur University case and the Sreejith case of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University that the powers to consider the short-listing and recommendation of a name or a re-appointment will have to remain away from the State or central executive which is important in preserving the requisite neutrality and impartiality required of the high office of the V-C.
A second option could be — should the UGC consider it to be appropriate – to allow the State executive to nominate one member to the search-cum-selection committee in addition to the member representing the University executive. In the process of making the search/selection, political personalities tend to have the view that the nominees would echo their master’s voice.
In the experience of this writer, this is not the case and the august members tend to air sufficiently independent and reasoned views. They do not parrot extraneous views that are unsupported by the record. Here again, the nominee could be stipulated to be a former V-C or equivalent and not enjoying a position of patronage as required of advisers serving the Union Public Service Commission. Either way, it should not be too difficult to factor in the concerns of the State executives and make the process wholesome and well-participated from the State’s perspective. It is best to avoid a collision course.
The second question which involves the indication to broaden the field of experience of prospective V-Cs to academically eminent persons who are experienced with public policy, government, the public sector and private sector industry, need not raise eyebrows. It was a norm followed in the past which took second place between 2010 and 2018 when there was a ‘scriptural reading’ of the 2010 UGC regulations. Many courts, most notably the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, took restrictive views of the prescribed qualification, limiting it to 10 years of professorship or even teaching experience.
The outlook must change
Post-tertiary education, highly cited and indexed publications, a notable articulation of visionary insights, high communication skills, an ability to network and team work, presentability, dynamism and proof of diverse intellectual achievements, and even sporting traits, are well-established international norms that are looked into in the search for V-Cs. Various men and women of eminence have graced the high academic office, reflecting their wealth of experience gained in parliaments, from public diplomacy, industry, international organisations, public service, non-university institutional research, work in the voluntary sector, from creative writing, the performing arts, music and even sport in India and abroad.
Excellence and eminence are not restricted to academic departments and colleges any more. Restricting the field of choosing a V-C to the teaching or research professions alone would not be appropriate in a context of rapid change and the dire need to reinvent the Indian university. Pulling down stereotyped shibboleths and rebuilding with considerable re-imagination call for original thinking, critical analysis, advocacy, networking and team-working skills. As researcher Amanda Goodall (author of Socrates in the Boardroom) argued, it is not enough that a V-C is modelled after Socrates, mostly absorbed in deep thought. The days of narcissistic, isolated glory of the university enterprise is long over. The winning university of tomorrow needs to be innovative and business-like as well as deeply philosophical. This calls for considerably liberal gateways for leadership positions. The UGC has rightly attempted it, true to purpose, and the same needs the support of the university community now.
B. Ashok is the Vice-Chancellor of Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, Kerala. The views expressed are personal
Published – March 11, 2025 12:16 am IST