PRESS RELEASE: 13 June 2014
The DUTA held a Press Conference on 13.6.14, in which it presented the highlights of a letter written to the Visitor of Delhi University, the Hon’ble President of India, appealing to him for abrogation of the FYUP Ordinances under the powers vested in him by Section 31 (6) of the Delhi University Act, 1922 (copy attached with email).
The Press Conference was addressed by former DUTA Presidents, former and current elected teachers’ representatives in the EC, and other leading activists of the DUTA, covering the entire political spectrum. Among the speakers were Dr. I M Kapahy (former EC Member) Mr. Shri Ram Oberoi (former DUTA President) and Mr. Avnijesh Awasthy (former AC Member), all from the NDTF; Dr. Shiba C. Panda (former EC Member and DUTA Secy.), Sh. JS Khuntia (former AC Member), both from AAD (Rathi); Sh. SD Siddiqui (former DUTA Secy.) and Ms. Anita Ghosh (current DUTA Jt. Secy.), both from INTEC (Congress); Sh. Harish Khanna (current DUTA Secy.) from AAP; Sh. Sandeep (current DUTA Vice President) from UTF; and Dr. MMP Singh (former DUTA President), Sh. Amar Deo Sharma (former DUTA President), Nandita Narain (current DUTA President) and Abha Dev Habib (current EC Member), all from DTF.
The following statement was released on the occasion.
DUTA PRESS STATEMENT for PRESS CONFERENCE: 13 JUNE 2014
DUTA Appeal to Visitor
The Delhi University Teachers’ Association has written to the Visitor of Delhi University (Hon. President, Sh. Pranab Mukherjee) appealing to him for annulment of the Ordinances related to the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP), under the powers vested in him under Section 31(6) of the Delhi University Act.
In the representation, it has pointed out that the FYUP has been introduced without due application of mind and in blatant violation of the Delhi University Act, 1922, and the UGC Act enacted in pursuance of Entry 66 of List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which gives the Union Government the following powers:
66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical education.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on 11.2.2005, inWrit Petition (civil) 19 of 2004 (Prof. Yashpal & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh &Ors.) has held that the UGC Act has been made with reference to Entry 66. The following extracts from paras 17 and 30 of the judgment, are particularly relevant:
17. …The expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make ‘coordination’ either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of the valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention.
30. Entry 66 which deals with co-ordination and determination of standard in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions is in Union List and the Parliament alone has the legislative competence to legislate on the said topic. The University Grants Commission Act has been made with reference to Entry 66…The Act has been enacted to ensure that there is co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities, which are institutions of higher learning, by a body created by the Central Government. It is the duty and responsibility of the University Grants Commission, which is established by Section 4 of the UGC Act, to determine and coordinate the standard of teaching curriculum and also level of examination in various Universities in the country. In order to achieve the aforesaid objectives, the role of UGC comes at the threshold. The course of study, its nature and volume, has to be ascertained and determined before the commencement of academic session. Proper standard of teaching cannot be achieved unless there are adequate infrastructural facilities in the campus like classrooms, libraries, laboratories, well-equipped teaching staff of requisite caliber and a proper student-teacher ratio….
The DUTA has also pointed out that the UGC has also not fulfilled its responsibility as approval for the structure and courses of the FYUP was not sought from itsix months prior to the commencement, in blatant violation of Clause 3 of Gazette Notification of 2004 which lays down that:
If a university wishes to start a new course it shall approach the UGC for its approval six months prior to starting the degree programme.
Violations by the University of Delhi in introducing FYUP
1. Courses were passed barely a month before starting of courses, so the required approval could not have been sought.
2. The adoption of a proposal to increase the duration of the undergraduate studies by a year entails 33% increase in students in every college. Colleges have only recently completed 54% expansion in intake of students on account of OBC reservations. While the funds granted to the University toward meeting the needs of 54% expansion has not been utilised to construct adequate room, laboratory and library facilities and to provide adequate number of teachers, the more than doubling due to this 33% of 154% should have called for a feasibility study and request for funding. A rough calculation would show that the quantum of additional funds required for such a project would be so enormous that only the Union Cabinet has the authority to sanction it, as it had done in the case of expansion following OBC reservation. This was never sought or obtained in the case of FYUP.
3. Even the issue of departure from the national scheme of 10+2+3 required working out the post-graduate programmes and examining the disparities that would arise. That these necessary exercises were not carried out shows that the authorities succumbed to the desire of the Vice-Chancellor to have FYUP in place in quick time unmindful of the questions such as feasibility, standards and equity.
Statutory Violations by Delhi University
The DUTA’s appeal to the Visitor is also based on the several statutory violations that have marred the manner in which the Academic Council and Executive Council of the University were made to pass the structure, courses and scheme of evaluation/examination related to the FYUP. These violations and irregularities indicate a subversion of the University’s Autonomy, as defined in the Delhi University Act (1922). The same Act also vests powers with the Visitor (under Section 31 (6)) to set aside those irregular decisions of the AC, EC and other statutory bodies/committees which may be understood to undermine the very statutory processes that define the University’s autonomous character and rule-bound functioning as a public-funded and administered institution.
The VC has repeatedly violated Section 32.2 of the DU Act, under which regulations are laid down stipulating notice for and conduct of meetings of AC/EC/Faculties etc. It may be recalled that the VC sent the FYUP structure to members of the Academic Council on the eve of 21.12.2012, only three days before the Academic Council meeting on 24.12.2012 in which it was approved. This was a blatant violation of the stipulation in Regulation 3.2 that the complete Agenda with details must be shared with all members at least 7 days in advance of the Meeting, to enable application of mind and consultation. This meant that the Chairperson of the Academic Council had made up his mind to have the structure approved through brute majority already ascertained before the meeting, without any engagement with views or opinion that may have been contrary to his own proposal. Statutory bodies like the Faculties and the Committees of Courses in Departments were not consulted on the structure, Regulation 16-A (4), read with Statute 10 and Ordinance XIV-B(6) clarifies that Faculties and Committees of Courses are to consider and make recommendations on anything related to the restructuring of courses and revision of syllabi. Subsequently, Regulation 4.2 was repeatedly violated in the manner that Faculties were asked to approve a large number of FYUP courses without being allowed to give time to members to apply their minds or discuss the courses and syllabi. The case of the Arts Faculty Meeting on 26.4.2013 in which 40 courses were passed in 70 minutes, without even allowing members to read through the details of these courses, syllabi and scheme of evaluation, has been widely reported in the media.
Sections 31.1 and 31.2 of the DU Act was also undermined by the manner in which the Executive Council Meetings of 26.12.2012, 9.5.2013 and 7.6.2013 were conducted, in which decisions pertaining to FYUP Ordinances were taken. In none of these meetings were members allowed access to the specific recommendations of the Academic Council beforehand. Neither were the recommended course details or scheme of evaluation and examination given to the members during the meeting. This was done despite the fact that the above-mentioned sections authorize the Executive Council to scrutinise the AC recommendations and suggest revisions/improvements, etc., if so required. The elected representative of teachers in the EC, Dr.Abha Dev Habib, as well as elected member from the University Court, Mr. Ajay Kumar, had dissented against these irregularities from the floor, and the Chancellor’s nominee in the EC, Sh. Javid Chowdhury (retd. IAS),had also written an elaborate letter of protest to the VC. However, their concerns were not responded to.
Apart from violations of the kind outlined above, the DUTA has also highlighted the negation of consultations and academic scrutiny, as a consequence of which the FYUP’s academic content and structure are of extremely poor quality. This is reflected in the widespread resentment against the malfunctioning FYUP amongst students and teachers.
The DUTA has reiterated its demand for scrapping the FYUP, and has sought the Visitor’s intervention under the powers vested in him in the DU Act to set aside the FYUP Ordinances. The DUTA hopes that the Visitor’s action in this regard will be prompt as immediate relief and clarity to thousands of students who are currently seeking admissions for the next academic session is required.
While demanding a rollback of FYUP w.e.f 2014, the DUTA re-iterates its commitment to protect the interests of the batch admitted to FYUP in 2013. To this end, it has made certain proposals for redistribution of courses within the four years so as to enable the students to exit after three years with an Honours degree, should they wish to do so. The fourth year would be optional. If this proposal is accepted, then students admitted to a four year B.Tech course would have the choice to exit after three years with a B.Sc. Hons degree or a B.Tech at the end of four years.
President, DUTA
(HARISH KHANNA)
Secretary, DUTA
https://duta.live
Leave a Reply