Appointment of Vice Chancellors: Calls for a Procedural Rejig

A vice chancellor is the executive and academic head of a university, with the responsibility to provide a leadership role, aiming to galvanise everybody in the organisation towards a common goal of achieving excellence. To perform such a critical role, vice chancellor requires to be a visionary with a proven track record of outstanding academic leadership and administrative abilities, of course, with high moral standards. The Acts governing state or central universities as well as the criterion stipulated by the UGC, defines the selection procedure for such a coveted position. Even though there are well defined procedures for the appointment of vice chancellors, yet the allegations about the political interference and irregularities in the appointment of vice chancellors are getting louder and louder every passing day. Besides, finding more and more vice chancellors and registrars embroiled in the alleged cases of corruption and other irregularities, makes it amply clear that there seems to exist some rot in the selection process. In order to enable universities to meet the challenges and demands of the 21st century, there is an urgency to identify the rot the selection process suffers, and what needs to be done to make it foolproof to the extent possible?

The process starts with the constitution of a ‘Search Committee’ which ordinarily should consist of the distinguished persons of national or international repute with an impeccable track record of honesty and personal integrity. Much, rather everything depends upon the quality of the members of the search committees. Unfortunately, gone are the days when the search committees were consisting of the distinguished persons known for their distinguished public service and personal integrity. Now the search committees generally consist of the persons, who merely by virtue of holding positions of vice chancellors etc. are nominated as members of the search committees rather than for having unblemished character and public prominence. It is widely believed that many of them happen to be vice chancellors only due to their political and other connections. Unworthy members have been found ever-ready to profit from this opportunity nationwide. Therefore, the rot mainly lies in the constitution of search committees, which needs to be taken care of otherwise it will worsen the situation beyond any repair.

   

In the past, only persons of great repute and integrity used to be the members of the search committees. No one whatsoever could have even dared to seek favours from them nor they have ever been found showing any laxity in their efforts to search and select the most appropriate persons for the post. Fortunately, there is no dearth of people of great repute and integrity in the country but unfortunately such people by and large are ignored for such a crucial national duty, generally unwittingly. If the chancellors want to see our universities competing at the global level, to feature among the top 100 universities, there is an urgency to see only the most worthy people  getting appointed as vice chancellors. The only stepping stone to achieve this noble goal would be constituting search committees consisting of great personalities, giving them freehand to search and select the outstanding and enthusiastic institutional leaders for our universities. Equally important would be that once a search committee is constituted, it is not made to report anybody till the task is finished as per the laid down procedures.

In the past there used to be a ‘Search Committee’ whose modus operandi was to search a best few, but now there has been a transition from ‘Search Committees’ to ‘Search-cum-Selection Committees’ which for all practical purposes are like any other selection committees. This transition raises a fundamental  question, “Is This Transition Good or Bad?” The earlier mechanism of searching the best is more appropriate, with a caveat that the committee members are truly worthy by all standards. However, presently a ‘Search-cum-Selection Committee Model’ is being followed. But this model is being questioned on the grounds of lack of transparency, and the other limitations with which it suffers. It is being observed that short listing is generally being done without following any scientific methodology. Few typical examples in this regard include; in 2013 the ‘Search-cum-Selection’ committee constituted for the appointment of VC, Central University of Kashmir shortlisted certain applicants and had even interaction with them. But then with the change in Govt. at Delhi in 2014, the new committee was constituted, which shortlisted different group of applicants from almost the same pool of applicants. Another case in point, the committee for the appointment of VC, Kashmir University in 2018 shortlisted 9 candidates, had interaction with them, However, the panel submitted by the committee reportedly was returned by the then Honourable Chancellor with the direction to re-advertise the post. Very recently ‘Search-cum-Selection Committee’ for Cluster Universities shortlisted none of the candidates from Union Territory of J&K except one from Jammu University. Once there was much hue and cry in local press about the alleged arbitrariness in the short listing of the candidates, the panels of selected candidates for the two universities submitted by the committees were shelved/ rejected by the office of the Chancellor and consequently new committees were constituted. Such a bold move was appreciated by one and all, which made people to believe that wrongdoings  no more can be allowed under the current regime. It is an open fact that the members of the committees who generally happen to be academicians, sitting or former vice chancellors, have been found quite susceptible to all sorts of pressures, thus ever-ready to compromise, though with some exceptions. “Politicians have used the appointment process to reward their supporters, and vice chancellors have increasingly been appointed based on minimum qualifications rather than leadership capacity and vision” (Alya Mishra, 05 Dec.2010; University World News).

The only solution to all this lies in two things, one; that the ‘Search-cum-Selection’ committees should consist of those persons only who are academicians of great prominence not only in terms of academic excellence but more for having a well known track record of personal integrity. 2nd; by evolving a selection process which has in-built objectivity and transparency. The Yash Pal Committee Report on Renovating Higher Education also battled for greater transparency in the selection process. Towards making selection process transparent with greater objectivity, there is a need to decide about the ‘Attributes’ which the ‘Search-cum-Selection’ committee would need to consider for short listing, and while finalising the panel. UGC has rightly stipulated that an eligible distinguished academician should be a Visionary with highest level of Integrity & Morals, Leadership Qualities, Proven Administrative Capabilities, and Outstanding Academic Record. To leave little or no room for personal bias, there is an urgency to make short listing process purely based on objective criterion. For this purpose, out of 1000 points, 75% weightage is proposed to be assigned to the selected academic credentials of the applicants to be considered for short listing and 25% to the interaction with the members of the committee. The following weightage is suggested for different parameters at the stages of screening of applications and interaction with the shortlisted candidates:

More weightage is proposed to be assigned to the administrative experience for obvious reasons, i.e. the vice chancellor is required to govern the administrative affairs in the most effective manner which in turn calls for having a greater academic administrative exposure. Besides, the success to lead an university to achieve greater heights would mainly depend upon VCs vision for the institution and his or her leadership philosophy. These two attributes cannot be measured objectively, thus can be assessed only at the stage of interaction. However, to get a fair idea during the interaction, the candidates need to be given enough time to present their vision/mission for the university and the kind of leadership philosophy he or she will embrace to galvanise everybody to achieve excellence in teaching and research. Video recording of the interaction would add more credibility to the whole process.  For the purposes of transparency, the points scored by each candidate at each stage should be made public on the website of the university.

To achieve excellence at par with the international standards, there is an urgency to put distinguished academicians at the helm of affairs of universities. But even if an academic leader is the most distinguished academician but lacking in moral attributes, such leaders have been found to have proved more injurious to the interests of the universities than the leaders who are honest even though less distinguished academicians. It is an established fact that the nations become great not merely due to their natural resources endowments but through morality and inspired vision of their leaders which is more true about the academic institutions. Therefore, ultimately it is the “Honesty and Personal Integrity” of a vice chancellor which matters the most. It is only those leaders who are honest with selfless devotion to the greater good of the institution, are trusted and respected the most thus able to galvanise everyone to focus their energies towards the achievement of institutional goals. Therefore, apart from being a visionary with proven track record of leadership and administrative capabilities, a vice- chancellor needs to have a “Leadership in Integrity and Honesty”. It would be difficult for the ‘Search-cum-Selection’ committee members to enquire about the moral attributes of the applicants selected for nomination to Hon. Chancellor. The only solution to such critical issue would be, that the Hon. Chancellor before taking final call on the panel of academicians submitted, involve some investigating agency to secretly and confidentially enquire about their track record of honesty, conduct and other attributes from the organisations where they are working or have worked. This to a great extent will allow to filter dishonest elements from occupying these ‘Temples of Knowledge’. If it becomes a nationwide policy then automatically it will create a healthy work culture in the universities.

Author is Former Registrar & Currently Professor in the Dept. of Commerce University of Kashmir.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 − 8 =