Letter to Visitor on appointment of Principal in ARSD College, 5.11.2013

Sub: Violation of UGC Regulations by University of Delhi in post advertised for Principal, ARSD College

While the current UGC Regulations (2010) vide Clause 5.1.6 (a) clearly stipulate the Selection Committee Composition for the appointment of Principals in colleges and limit these posts to a Term of 5 years (Annexure 1), the University of Delhi is hurriedly trying to get a Principal appointed in ARSD College without following either stipulation. This fiasco is the result of the University’s failure, till date, to make appropriate amendments to its existing Ordinances guiding the nature of the Principal’s post, Eligibility Conditions, Selection Criteria, Selection Committee and Appointment Procedure in the light of the final notification of the UGC Regulations.

While the Principal’s post for ARSD College was advertised on 15 August 2013 (Annexure 3), the University Vice Chancellor convened meetings of the Academic Council and Executive Council on the following two days, i. e. 16-17 August 2013. These meetings were convened to exclusively consider and adopt amendments to the University Ordinances in the light of the UGC Regulations (2010). Yet, no proposal to amend the clauses of Ordinance XVIII pertaining to the nature of the Principal’s post, Eligibility, Selection Committee and Appointment Procedure was tabled. 

The University has subsequently taken the plea that the post of the ARSD College Principal may be filled up according to the older criteria by citing an ‘Interim Order’ passed by Hon. High Court of Delhi on 23 July 2013 (Annexure 2) which allows the University to set in motion the process of appointments keeping in mind the urgency of the situation wherein ARSD College has not had a regular Principal for a long time. This ‘Interim Order’ has been disingenuously invoked as final despite the fact that the Hon. Supreme Court of India had in September 1994 declared that UGC Regulations are “mandatory” for every institution of higher learning. 

While such a discrepancy is clearly unacceptable to the teaching community and smacks of high-handedness on the part of the highest officials in the University, it is even more alarming that the University has scheduled Interviews for the Principal’s appointment on the basis of the said advertisement for 11 November 2013. In 2003, the then-Visitor had, in his responsible effort to ensure the prevalence of law, stayed the appointments process due to the University’s failure to constitute Selection Committees in accordance with the UGC Regulations (Annexure 4). In this situation too, therefore, the DUTA urges you to immediately intervene and prevent this discrepant appointment from being allowed to take place. If allowed, such a glaring instance of the subversion of law and the undermining of the UGC’s authority will set a dangerous precedent for the colleges of the University, many of which presently await the appointment of regular Principals.