Why UGC fondness for Governors is unhealthy

First formulated in 2010 and amended from time to time since then, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has again revised its rules on the "minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in higher education."

The draft regulations 2025 have triggered a mixed response from academic circles as the intended modifications in certain contentious issues have far-reaching consequences on appointments, service conditions and promotions of teachers as well as the autonomy and control of the state on higher educational institutions (HEIs).

With the aim of achieving the goals of National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, emphasis has been laid on the use of Indian languages, societal engagement and teaching, learning and research in the Indian knowledge system. The numerical score-based academic performance indicator (API) system for the recruitment and promotions of teachers has been replaced with a subjective evaluation system that involves contributions towards teaching, research and digital content creation. This system has inherent limitations, which have been already experienced prior to the API system era. Emphasis has been laid on non-measurable accomplishments, to be considered by selection committees. The new system lacks transparency, leaves room for irrational evaluation and manipulation, which is of serious concern.

Apparently envisioned to promote academic flexibility, allowing teachers to teach subjects based on their highest specialisations without having degrees in the same subjects at the lower academic levels may create problems in case of collaborative multi-disciplinary studies and discourage the much-needed interdisciplinary research approaches.

The draft document lacks a transparent mechanism for foolproof and acceptable implementation of its provisions to eliminate suspicion, partiality and undue preference to subjective evaluations.

It is feared that de-capping of the limit on contractual appointments of teachers will encourage this practice, compromising the quality and creation of committed and innovative professionals. Such appointments need to be curtailed as they are only an emergent temporary solution.

The minimum qualifications and procedure for the selection of vice-chancellor (VC) have been revised. Now, absolute powers are vested in chancellors (governors in case of state universities) to select VCs through search-cum-selection committees. The VC's post has also been opened for non-academicians from the industry, public administration and public policy. This is a cause of disappointment and discouragement for distinguished and accomplished academicians.

These ill-conceived, unsustainable solutions have probably been envisioned due to the recent rows between some opposition-ruled state governments and their governors over the appointment of VCs.

The role of state governments in the appointment of VCs has been eliminated though, constitutionally, education is a state subject and under the Concurrent List.

Being contrary to the federal principles of governance, the Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments have rejected the draft document. The document is also unacceptable to the All-India Federation of University and College Teachers Organisation. Some other quarters may also oppose it.

Views have been expressed against making the VC's post open to non-academicians. Questions like whether we appoint businessmen as civil surgeons have been raised in this context. A VC is essentially an academic leader and scholastic role model for the faculty, staff and students.

The HEIs are neither factories nor business franchises. They are institutions where excellence in teaching and learning is ensured and young minds are groomed for free thinking in a research-undertaking environment. These values cannot be appreciated by non-academic paratroopers or persons not exposed to the rigorous academic ecosystem of HEIs and lacking in academic and research knowledge and orientation, no matter how expert they may be in their field of specialisation.

It will open the VC's post to persons with political and ideological affiliations, compromising the eminence, propriety and commitment to academic excellence that is expected from this position. The appointment of non-academicians as Professors of Practice in universities with similar expectations, too, is yet to show tangibly beneficial results.

It would be in the interest of the nation to avoid such experimentations with HEIs. A balance of the role of state governments and governors in the selection of VCs is needed. Further, it should be provided that none of the selection committee members is below the rank of a VC; that a non-academician is not appointed VC even as a stop-gap arrangement; and that the post does not stay without a regular VC for a long time.

Instead of inviting applications, nominations may be invited from current and former VCs, directors of institutions of importance, acclaimed intellectuals, etc, elucidating the achievements, integrity and calibre of the aspirant.

Though questionable, the draft regulations are mandatory in nature and impose stringent penalties on their violations. The penalties include debarring the institution from getting UGC schemes and disqualifying it not only from offering any degree but also the institution as a whole.

These regulations, ostensibly asserted as "measures for maintenance of standards in higher education", are, in fact, a blatant effort to erode the autonomy of universities, impose Central control, compromise the quality of education, curtail academic freedom, undermine academicians and overstep the UGC mandate. The UGC Act of 1956 does not clearly contain any provision related to VCs’ selection. Having no regulation till 2010, introducing the UGC nominee on the search panel in 2010, withdrawing it in 2013, reintroducing it in 2018 and expanding it for greater control over HEIs in 2025 reflects that the UGC itself is not clear about its role in VCs' appointments.

The regulations will lead to academic chaos and put the state universities in a disadvantageous position. The UGC must not go ahead with the disruptive revisions.

Especially so, when the formation of an umbrella organisation — the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) — as envisaged in NEP-2020, subsuming the UGC, is in the pipeline. The HECI would have responsibilities, like maintaining academic standards and specifying the eligibility criteria and mode for selection of VCs.