20 June, 2014.
All Members of the Academic Council,
Delhi University.
Dear Colleagues,
The meeting of the Academic Council scheduled for 21st June, 2014, is being held at a time when our University is facing perhaps its most serious crisis ever.
You would have heard from media reports that the UGC, in a meeting of the full Commission held on 13.6.2014, has held the Four Year Undergraduate Program of Delhi University to be illegal as it deviates from the National Policy of 10+2+3, and as requisite permission for it had not been sought from the Visitor, the Hon’ble President of India. In the light of this, the UGC has asked the University to urgently review and reconsider its introduction of the FYUP.
If it is indeed true that the University did not submit the Ordinances to the Visitor immediately after the Executive Council approval, then it is a gross violation of Section 31(4) of the Act that requires the same to be submitted to as soon as may be so as to allow the Visitor to exercise his power of disallowance laid out under Section 31(5).
Moreover, two other clauses of the Act, viz 32(4) and 32(5) stipulate the placing of Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations before the two Houses of the Parliament, which have the power of disallowance, and also requires publication in the Official Gazette. If, as the Secretary HRD, Mr. Ashok Thakur, is reported to have said, the Ordinances have not been submitted to the MHRD, then these two clauses of Section 32 of the DU Act have been violated rendering the Ordinances void. A copy of these two clauses is attached.
Both these are extremely serious transgressions of the Law, and entail, at the very least, immediate resignation by the Vice Chancellor, whose prime duty, as per Statute 11G(2), is to uphold the Delhi University Act.
The autonomy of our University is defined by the Act, and is also within the framework of the Constitution of India that lays down the role of the Central Government in determination and coordination of standards, which is implemented through the UGC. The Supreme Court has upheld this role as “absolute”, and explained it in terms of harmonizing and maintaining adherence to patterns laid down, ensurance of infrastructure including adequate teacher student ratio etc. To this end, a Notification published in the Official Gazette in 2005, requires the University to send any new course to the UGC for approval six months prior to its introduction. A copy of the 2004 Notification is attached and relevant extracts of the Supreme Court judgment follow. This essential requirement was not complied with by the University administration in the case of FYUP, for which courses were being passed as late as in June 2013, for commencement in July 2013!
Moreover, the additional financial commitment required for basic infrastructural facilities for additional 33% students in the fourth year would be so enormous as to require sanction by the Cabinet, as was done for the 54% expansion after OBC reservation was introduced. In the case of FYUP, this was not only not done, but the University administration did not even address the question before embarking on this project, in complete violation of General Financial Rules.
The DUTA, along with several representatives on the AC and EC, has been highlighting the serious violations in Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations regarding the functioning of statutory bodies such as the EC, AC, Faculties and Committees of Courses, which have been consistently denied the opportunity to apply their mind and have a say in the decision for such a massive restructuring and overhaul of the academic system. This has been done by consistently sending at short notice, placing on the table or not placing at all relevant agenda papers, or then completely bypassing some statutory bodies for crucial decisions. In the same cavalier manner, the University administration has announced the transition to a one-year PG through the media! In this way, statutory bodies have been reduced to rubber stamps, which has completely hollowed out our autonomy from within. Not to speak of show-cause notices, enquiries, wage cuts, codes of conduct and other measures used to subvert the space for democratic discussion, debate and scrutiny, which is the essence of a University’s autonomy.
Feedback from students taken in various forms such as referendums and anonymously filled questionnaires, have revealed the severe degradation of the undergraduate program under FYUP. The General Body of the DUTA, in its meeting held on 31st January, 2014, has demanded a complete rollback of the FYUP and Semester System, which have diluted and impoverished our teaching, learning and examining standards. Fluctuating workload has adversely affected the prospects of ad-hoc teachers for early regularization. The administration has held up regular appointments for several years, resulting in almost 4,500 ad hoc teachers, in violation of our Ordinances that lay down a 33% ceiling on the number of ad-hoc/temporary teachers, as well the UGC Regulations that stipulate a ceiling of 10% on the number of contractual (ad-hoc) teachers.
At this juncture, given the UGC declaring the FYUP invalid, thousands of students’ future is in jeopardy because of the quixotic and authoritarian functioning of a few. This number will be doubled if fresh admissions to the FYUP are allowed to take place on 24th June.
Members of the Academic Council have a historic responsibility to stand up to defend this University from being plunged into a crisis of unimaginable proportions. Irrespective of their individual understanding of the merits and demerits of FYUP, we appeal to all members to ask for withdrawal of this unrecognized and illegal course, before any other business is transacted in the meeting of the Academic Council.
With regards,
Nandita Narain, President
Harish Khanna, Secretary
NOTE: Apart from the unacceptable haste in which restructuring was decided and carried out in a manner that is unimaginable in the academic world, some issues which ought to have been considered but were not are pointed out in the following paragraphs. Paragraphs numbered 17 and 30 from the Supreme Court judgment on 11 February 2005 in the Writ Petition (civil) 19 of 2004 (Prof. Yashpal & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. read as follows:
17 The same question was also examined in considerable detail in State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute 1995 (4) SCC 104 and the conclusions drawn were summarized in para 41 of the reports and sub-paras (i) and (ii) thereof are being reproduced below: (i) 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 (See Prem Chand Jain v. R.K. Chhabra 1984 (2) SCR 883 and Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1987 (4) SCC 671). 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. For this purpose, the Central Government has made a number of Rules in exercise of powers conferred by Section 25 of UGC Act and the Commission has also made Regulations in exercise of power conferred by Section 26 of the UGC Act and to mention a few, UGC Inspection of Universities Rules, 1960, UGC Regulations 1985 regarding the Minimum Standards of Instructions for the Grant of the First Degree, UGC Regulations, 1991 regarding Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, etc. The UGC with the approval of the Central Government and exercising power under Section 22(3) of the UGC Act has issued a schedule of degrees which may be awarded by the Universities.
https://duta.live
Leave a Reply