Complaints against private universities in this country are often raucous on this or that account. Now the public notice issued the other day by the University Gants Commission (UGC) on the illegality of certificates issued by anyone other than the respective vice-chancellor (VCs) appointed by the country's president in his capacity of chancellor confirms the ailment. As many as 18 private universities are running without vice-chancellors. The notice clarifies that there is no provision for a de facto vice-chancellor. It is a properly appointed vice-chancellor who along with the controller of examinations must sign the original certificates earned by students passing out from a private university. Even a former VC has no right to sign certificates. So the validity of a certificate awarded by a private university has been well defined.
Yet the 18 universities have defied the clear-cut rule by not appointing VCs, pro-VCs, and treasurers. The inclusion of treasurers is important here. This is because the notice further clarifies that such unauthorised persons cannot even sign cheques for transactions of money and other important documents. Clearly, this makes financial accounts of those universities suspect. When private universities cannot go beyond the legal parameter of non-profitability, they skirt around the provision by different dubious means. This is perhaps one such escape route for them.
As the UGC notice has published the names and from the time they have been running without VCs, one feels prompted to ask how students passing out from such higher seats of learning have managed to apply for jobs or admission to post-graduation or doctoral courses. Haven't these universities issued any certificate so far? There are a number of universities in the defaulting list which have never appointed VCs since coming into being. Others had got VCs initially but later on failed to appoint to the vacant posts.
If such universities have no VCs, can anyone expect them to have required numbers of teachers, let alone senior professors whose experience prove invaluable not only for imparting lessons in classes but also for setting up a standard for junior teachers by guiding and grooming them up. Some private universities hire services of teachers of public universities. It is often a package deal. The hired teachers take certain number of classes to complete a course semester by semester. Commercialism has made its dent into higher education as well. So it is not exactly a mission for acquiring knowledge but earning a degree for career-building. Hired teachers have their limitations and feel an obligation to make some compromises so that their charges at the private universities do not fail en masse.
What is intriguing is that despite the violation of basic rules, private universities have been allowed to operate their academic functions for years. If appointment of VCs is mandatory for academic and financial transparency, how could those universities operate without ever appointing one each? Defiance of regulations was no secret. This means that the UGC was either lax in enforcing regulations or turned a blind eye to the matter. But has the UGC been empowered to take action against erring private varsities? Perhaps, here the issue should be made clear.
In the issuance of the public notice actually lies the answer to this question. Had the UGC have the authority to take action, it had no need for a public notice and thus warning students against admission to such universities. It could issue a show-cause notice to the universities in question to explain why they violated the regulations. On their submission of reply, it could take actions accordingly. Now if such important matters lie unsettled like this, some take advantage of the situation to fatten their coffers but it is the learners who fall victim to the chaos.
