Maharashtra govt gives itself powers to okay VCs’ dismissal | Mumbai News – Times of India

MUMBAI: The Maharashtra government has for the first time drawn up a detailed statute to lay out the terms under which a university vice chancellor can be sacked. The move, however, does not find favour with a section of academics who feel it would erode the autonomy of the institution.

Presumably taking a cue from the controversy created when the former higher education minister Uday Samant decided that the state should play a role in the selection of a vice chancellor, this time, the ministry has decided to empower itself to recommend the VC’s removal to the chancellor.
The request to draw up a detailed procedural framework for removing the head of a university came from Raj Bhavan, said senior officials. The government has introduced provisions to ensure that the inquiry process will be led by an officer not below the rank of deputy secretary.
Some experts, however, are of the opinion that each university has its own decision-making bodies and that the state’s interference is uncalled for. But officials said since a VC is considered equal to a secretary the newly drawn up statutes have taken this into account while drafting the rules for an inquiry.
“The Chancellor may suo motu or on receipt of any reference from the state government or any complaint from any person, be of the opinion that there is a prima facie case for taking recourse for removal of the Vice-Chancellor,” reads the statute (a copy is with TOI). Detailing the process, the state has said, first a preliminary inquiry would be conducted by at least a deputy secretary-ranked officer, followed by a detailed one by a retired district judge and then action would be taken on the inquiry report and an order would be communicated to the outgoing VC with details of the inquiry report and a statement of findings by the chancellor.
In the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, under existing rules, the chancellor can terminate the service of a VC under six provisions including insanity, illness, conviction by a court or breach in terms of service or abuse of power, etc. “But under the new statutes anyone can complain to the Chancellor and depending on the situation, all four steps of removal would be followed or the chancellor may use his discretion and immediately call for a detailed inquiry to speed up the process,” said a source.
Educationists however said these rules may trample on the university’s autonomy. “One does not understand why an officer of the rank of deputy secretary is permitted to conduct the preliminary inquiry. Also if the VC appointment committee is headed by a retired justice of the Supreme Court or retired chief justice of the high court, why should a retired district judge carry out the detailed inquiry?” asked a senior educationist. A section of senior academicians are planning to move court against these statutes.