Letter to Visitor: 11 June 2014

Hon’ble Shri Pranab Mukherjee
Visitor, University of Delhi
(President of India)
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi

11^th
June, 2014

Hon’ble Shri Pranab Mukherjee,

We wish to seek your intervention in
the Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) introduced in the University of
Delhi since 2013. The FYUP, which has been the object of severe criticism by
students, teachers and reputed academia in the country and which deviates from
the national policy of 10+2+3 and is not in consonance with the school and
post-graduate education in the country, 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.

SEVENTH
SCHEDULE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

LIST I 26 UNION LIST

66. Co-ordination and
determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and
scientific and technical education.

View of the Supreme Court on the role of the UGC and the Central
Government

The Supreme Court has taken a view of the role of the UGC and Central
Government with regard to the mandate relating to the co-ordination and
maintenance of standards. 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.

Powers and responsibility of the UGC and the Central Government

Clauses 3 & 4 of the Gazette Notification No. F.1-52/97 (CPP-II)
dated 31.1.2004 issued by the UGC with the approval of the Central Government
under subsection 3 of Section 22 of the UGC Act read as follows:

3. The
list shall be reviewed and updated by the UGC from time to time under
intimation to all the universities. 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.

4. The
courses of study prescribed for the degree should have been formally approved
by the respective academic bodies of the university / institution such as –
Board of Studies, Academic Council and Governing Council. (Annexure I)

Violation by the University of Delhi in introducing FYUP

1. The Executive Council, as per
University’s claim, approved draft Ordinances providing the courses of study
for the FYUP partly on 9 May 2013 and finally on 7 June 2013, barely a month
before starting the courses and after the process of receiving admission
applications had started. Therefore, the question of sending it to the UGC for
its approval six months prior to starting the course did not arise.

2. The above-mentioned rules notified
to carry out the Constitutional mandate do not admit / provide for any waiver.
Both the UGC and the University of Delhi are required to abide by the rules.

3. Apart from the question of curricula
standards, at issue were the facts that neither the Academic Council nor the
Executive Council had examined the infrastructural, logistical and teacher
requirements of extending the duration of undergraduate programme by one year
and consequently increasing the number of students in each college by 33%. This
increase follows the 54% increase in intake that had occurred following
introduction of OBC reservations. The number of students was to be doubled compared
to the pre-OBC reservation years while colleges are already unable to meet the
needs of the 54% expansion that has been recently concluded.

4. The additional financial outlay for
the infrastructural, logistic and faculty requirements to provide for 33%
additional student intake would estimably be to the tune of more than 1000
crores, for which the approval of the Union Cabinet is essential. Thus the FYUP
project required the sanction of the Cabinet. Implementing this project without
this approval is a case of grave financial impropriety and illegality. It may
be recalled that the OBC reservation and increased intake project was approved
by the Cabinet. In the case of FYUP, this approval was never sought or
obtained.

5. Further, the deviation from National
Policy of 10+2+3 under which, barring a few small-sized institutions, every
university in the country is following three year undergraduate programmes.
This has created disparities among students of different universities in the
matter of employment and further studies. The statutory bodies have till date
not even made an attempt to address this aspect of co-ordination.

VIOLATION OF
THE D.U. ACT AND ATTENDANT PROVISIONS

Courses of Study for the FYUP are in violation of the D.U. Act

1. Courses of study for a degree are to
be provided in Ordinances vide sections 7(4) and 30(b) of the Act while syllabi
of papers are to be prescribed by Regulations vide section 7(1). Courses of
study are set out in Appendix II to Ordinance V(2). The Executive Council alone
can amend, repeal or add Ordinances vide section 31(1) of D.U. Act. In matters
of admission, examinations and courses of study, Executive Council can make
Ordinance only on the basis of a draft of such Ordinance proposed by the
Academic Council vide section 31(ii).

2. Under Section 31(2) of the D.U. Act,
the draft proposed by the Academic Council can be approved, rejected or
returned for reconsideration, either in whole or in part, together with any
suggested amendments by the Executive Council. For the Executive Council to
approve reject or suggest amendments to any draft course of study, the same
must be made available to it. Since Prof. Dinesh Singh assumed the office of
the Vice-Chancellor, the draft Ordinances providing courses of study are not
made available to members of the Executive Council either before or during the
meeting.

3. As Chairperson of the Executive
Council, the Vice-Chancellor is duty-bound to convene the meeting in accordance
with laid down Regulations and give effect to its decisions vide Statute 11-G.
The approval secured by him from the Executive Council, without the members
having seen what they are approving as has been the repeated practice, is most
arbitrary, perverse and unacceptable in any academic institution.

4. More specifically, the courses of
study for FYUP were not circulated to the members of the Executive Council
either before or during its meetings on 9 May 2013 and 7 June 2013. The
Executive Council is supposed to have approved various courses of studies in
these meetings. The Executive Council was given a statement that the Academic
Council recommended as draft amendments a list of subjects, which
syllabi/schemes of examinations were to replace the existing syllabi/scheme of
examinations. These syllabi /scheme of examinations were not themselves shared
with the members of the Executive Council.

5. The notice of the meeting of the
Executive Council held on 9.5.2013, minutes of the meeting as well as a letter
by Mr. Javid Chowdhury, Chancellor’s nominee, and a note of dissent by two
members bear testimony to this illegality. (Annexures II a, II b, II c and II d)

Authorities of the University not allowed to apply their minds in
violation of section 32(2)

1. Section 32(2) of the D.U. Act makes
it incumbent that every authority of the University to “make Regulations
providing for giving of notice to the members of such authority of the dates of
meetings and of the business to be considered at meetings and for the keeping
of record of the proceedings of the meetings.” Proceedings of meetings not
convened accordingly are irregular and should be set aside.

2. For example, Regulation 3.2 states
that “The Registrar shall, ordinarily, at least seven days before each meeting
of the Academic Council, issue to each member thereof, a notice convening the
meeting and a copy of the Agenda thereof:” Similarly, Regulations 2.2 and $.2
specify not less than seven days for the meeting of the Executive Council and
at least five days for the meeting of a Faculty respectively. These requirements
are ostensibly for responsibly taking decisions after perusal of the business
to be transacted and due application of mind by every member. These are
inviolable with regard to substantive academic restructuring, starting of new
courses or new academic units since they can never be matters requiring
immediate administrative action in the face of some exigencies. They affect the
character of the university and the lives of a large number of students.

3. The meeting of the Academic Council
that considered for the first time and approved the proposal for FYUP and the
structure of the FYUP was held on 24.12.202. Though the notice of the meeting
along with some agenda papers were issued on 17.12.2012, the substantive
proposal prescribing the structure of the FYUP was circulated by email in the
evening of 21.12.2012. If the agenda item was not ready, the meeting ought to
have been rescheduled and not force a decision on such a massive restructuring
without adequate time. (Annexure III a)

4. The meeting of the Executive Council
was notified for 26.12.2012 vide a notice dated 17.12.2012 without any agenda
item circulated. The draft Ordinance V(1) seeking addition of three new degrees
and the structure of the FYUP were placed on the table and were approved in
quick time in violation of section 32(2) of the D.U. Act. (Annexure III b)

5. The Executive Council not merely
approved the recommendations but also called upon teachers to frame courses of
study and syllabi in accordance with the structure of FYUP within any time
frame that the Vice-Chancellor were to set. That authorities such as the
Academic Council and the Executive Council are not prepared to carry out the
responsibility vested in them by the D.U. Act and the Vice-Chancellor is solely
authorised to take academic decisions of such magnitude exposes the nature of
the vitiated functioning of these bodies.

6. To illustrate the systematic
violation of section 32(2), the case of the meeting of Faculty of Arts held on
26.4.2013 should suffice. Courses of study prepared by a large number of
Departments running into hundreds of pages were not circulated in advance but
placed on the table and approved without members having time to read what they
were approving. These courses of study were then approved by the Academic
Council. (Annexure IV)

Undermining the process of academic scrutiny provided in the Statutes,
Ordinances and Regulations.

1. Statute 10 gives the power to the
Faculties to appoint Committees of Courses in different branches of knowledge,
to consider and to make recommendations to the Academic Council on any
questions pertaining to their sphere of work or any matter referred to them by
the Academic Council. Ordinance XIV-B(6) requires a Faculty to recommend
Courses of Studies in the various subjects under the Faculty to the AC after
considering the recommendations of the relevant Committee of Courses and
Studies. Statute 10 r/w Regulation 16-A(4) clarifies that the Committees of
Courses of Studies in the different branches of knowledge are to consider and
recommend on matters related to restructuring of courses and revision of
syllabi.

2. The restructuring of the FYUP had to
either come from the Committees of Courses through the respective Faculties to
the Academic Council or referred to the Committees of Courses through the Faculties
by the Academic Council before arriving at a considered decision. The proposal
was never sent to the Faculties or the Committees for their consideration, and
the pleas to that effect by some Heads
of Department and Deans in the meeting of the Academic Council on 24.12.2012
fell on deaf ears. The hasty and prejudiced manner in which FYUP got introduced
had no place for the procedures provided for responsible decision making.

3. The result of not following due
processes for academic decision making is the adoption of a proposal to
increase the duration of the undergraduate studies by a year. This increase
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. Even the issue of departure from 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.

III

NEGATION OF
CONSULTATIONS AND ACADEMIC SCRUTINY

1. Since the new structure was to
affect colleges, the logistical, infrastructural requirements and requirements
of teachers and non-teaching staff should have been examined by the Principals
and Staff Councils of the College. The Academic Council on considering whether
semester system should be introduced at undergraduate level on 7 October 2008
had asked the Vice-Chancellor to seek feedback from individual teachers and
students as well as Staff Councils of colleges. This was not done in the case of
introduction of FYUP.

2. The University had always followed a
process of wider consultation and debate in such matters, The B.A. Pass
programme restructured in 2003 was followed by a Committee’s report based on
two years of consultations through workshops held at various locations where
proposed drafts at various stages were debated and revised. The DUTA was
opposed to the final outcome but did not seek intervention.

3. It has been a long standing practice
that the Committees of Courses at the level of Departments used to base their
recommendations on proposals emanating from the General Bodies of teachers of
the concerned subjects, Each General Body used to constitute committees to
frame different papers, the drafts of which used to circulate in every college
for comments, suggestions and criticism. This practice has been completely
given up by all departments under pressure from the University administration.
The consequence has been shocking impoverishment in academic restructuring.

In the light of the above, we urge
you to set aside courses of study for FYUP framed as Ordinances in Appendix II
to Ordinance V(2) as well as the attendant amendments to other Ordinances,
under section 31(6) of the powers vested in the Hon’ble Visitor under the Delhi
University Act.

With regards,

Nandita Narain Harish Khanna

(President,
DUTA) (Secretary, DUTA)

Get regular DUTA updates.

https://duta.live

Delhi University Teachers’ Association

Leave a Reply Cancel reply