May a million flowers bloom, said Chairman Mao. And one day, on a whim, he went and razed the garden.
In India, flowers and gardens remain scarce but a million other things bloom. Illegal construction. Unregulated educational institutions. Until one fine day, someone wakes up and commands, "Hatao!"
But this is not China, so people take to the streets in protest. Like the students of Satyabhama engineering college and SRM Institute of Science and Technology - both deemed universities. Hundreds of students of these colleges held demonstrations demanding to know the status and validity of their degrees.
This followed a notice from AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) which apparently stated that B.Tech degrees awarded by deemed universities would not be recognised, unless the courses were approved by the council.
Students of the Dr. MGR Deemed University and Bharat Engineering College had gone on strike for four days on the same issue, a few days ago.
The colleges were battling it out in court, and said that since they had UGC approval they did not come under the purview of AICTE.
What took so long?
The sad part was, in all these ‘technical’ discussions of eligibility and approval, the fate of thousands of students who took admission in good faith hung in balance.
We do need a regulatory body but clearly, AICTE is like an old and toothless ayah running around and shouting, “Children, don’t be naughty.” What else could one say about a regulatory body which, Kumbhakaran-like, awakes from its stupor once every 5 decades or so?
Did you know that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) was first set-up in November 1945??!!! Yup, that’s what it says on their website and honestly it was news to me.
AICTE was meant to be: "a national level Apex Advisory Body to conduct survey on the facilities on technical education and to promote development in the country in a coordinated and integrated manner."
But something, somewhere went awry. So…
The Government of India (Ministry of Human Resource Development) constituted a National Working Group to look into the role of AICTE in the context of proliferation of technical institutions, maintenance of standards and other related matters. The Working Group recommended that AICTE be vested with the necessary statutory authority for making it more effective, which would consequently require restructuring and strengthening with necessary infrastructure and operating mechanisms.
Wonderful. Is that why AICTE was suddenly getting so active? Er, not exactly. These recommendations were made in 1987 !! The AICTE Act came into force a year later…
The statutory All India Council for Technical Education was established on May 12, 1988 with a view to proper planning and coordinated development of technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith.
Phew – quite a mouthful. But no one had a clue where AICTE was in the 1990's when engineering, management and medical colleges were mushrooming all over the country.
Many of these colleges were started by politicians, and flouted every conceivable norm (‘technical institutes’ in sheds with tin roofs for example – that was the state of some colleges in New Bombay when they first came up). Money and muscle power ensured AICTE looked the other way.
Now, the powers that be were keen to rectify the situation. AICTE was publishing notice after notice in newspapers imploring technical institutes to apply for accreditation – and threatening legal action against those who do not comply. But colleges are thinking, we’re all in it together – can they really shut down hundreds of us?
Well, Amity Business School’s flagship PGDM course actually lost its AICTE accreditation in September 2005 after failing to meet prescribed norms. Amity also lost the subsequent case in the Allahabad High Court challenging the AICTE order.
But surely in the course of an entire year it could not have been the only institute found unworthy of accreditation? Why was so much speed shown in revoking Amity’s accreditation while others received only threats and warnings??
The point being that unless AICTE was perceived as being fair, impartial and speedy in its actions it would never be taken seriously.
Secondly, however badly a college may have sinned revoking accreditation in the middle of an academic year was senseless. All such announcements must be made before the start of a session and must apply to new admissions – not students already enrolled!
The Tamil Nadu tangle
I don’t have an intimate knowledge of the scene in Tamil Nadu but I do know that SRM and Satyabhama were – at least till a couple of years ago – well respected colleges. Students rated them in the top 10 in the state and SRM even produced ‘state rank holders '.
Then, they became deemed universities and according to this news report, went in for reckless expansion
The Tamil daily Dinamalar, in its report dated 2 September 2003, had highlighted the massive expansion of capacity by the SRM Engineering College: "on obtaining the deemed university status, SRM Engineering College has admitted 2000 students netting in Rs.300 crore. In the much sought-after ECE course, 600 students had been admitted. A complaint on this had been sent to the chief minister's office, which has initiated an enquiry."
The complaint pointed out that the college, which until 2005, had a total strength of just 2000, had admitted more than 2000 fresh students that year. Against the optimum strength of around 50 per class, that year, it had admitted 80 students in each section for the ECE course collecting Rs.2 lakh per student. It is gathered that the principal had opted to resign unable to cope with this crowd.
Can current students throw some further light on the situation? Are they satisfied with their course?? And if all is above board what is the institute’s problem in applying for AICTE accreditation anyways???
AICTE cannot take action against Deemed Universities: HC
The Madras High Court ruled that the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) had the authority to inspect deemed universities but any action against them could be only taken by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan made the observation while quashing a public notice issued by the AICTE in February last, warning of stringent legal action against Deemed Universities which conducted new courses and programmes, without its prior approval.
Disposing of petitions filed by about 20 deemed universities in Tamil Nadu, the judges pointed out that according to a UGC communication, "the AICTE may visit the university department or constituent college and send its final report to the the UGC for final approval".
Noting that the AICTE team conducting any inspection of deemed universities had the representation of the UGC, the bench said if the UGC did not depute such a member within a reasonable time, the AICTE could proceed to conduct the inspection and forward its report to the UGC for action.
Referring to the notices sent by the AICTE and the UGC calling for information regarding the courses offered and those introduced after being declared Deemed Universities and whether UGC approval had been taken, the bench directed all universities to respond to the notices within four weeks if they had not done so.
The Madras High Court, in an interim direction relating to the regulatory jurisdiction of the AICTE and the UGC over deemed universities, has instructed the former to issue a public notice advising students to attend classes.
Reserving its final order, a bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan said the AICTE in its advertisement should mention that students must return to their colleges, since failure to attend classes would result in their losing an academic year.
It must be published in English and Indian language newspapers, the judges said.
The bench indicated that orders would be pronounced in the third week of May and observed that all deemed universities must take prior permission from the UGC before starting new courses.
The AICTE could be part of the inspection team mandated to visit deemed universities, the judges added.
The Madras High Court had asked AICTE to furnish details based on which it issued a press notice on February 16, 2006 stipulating that all institutions offering technical education should apply for AICTE approval on or before March 7, 2006.
The First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan, hearing a batch of petitions relating to the regulatory jurisdiction of the AICTE and the UGC over deemed universities, also asked counsel for the AICTE as to why it issued such a press notice only in respect of deemed universities located in Tamil Nadu.
During the course of arguments, the Bench also observed that there seemed to be an "overlapping of interests" in the Anna University Vice-Chancellor holding an additional charge of the Chairman of the Southern Regional Committee of the AICTE.
In his submissions, K. Chandru, senior counsel for the UGC, contended that the AICTE should give its inputs about the infrastructure and intake of deemed universities only when its advice is sought for. The UGC need not act on the unsolicited advice from the AICTE, he said, adding that similarly the Ministry of Human Resources Development was not bound by the unsolicited inputs from either of the statutory bodies. Such an advice was mandatory and not directory in nature, he said.
In April 2005 the UGC wrote to deemed universities calling upon them furnish information relating to academic standards, infrastructure and intake in their institutions. Maintaining that the Commission was processing the response, Mr. Chandru said if the amenities in these institutions were found unsatisfactory the UGC would recommend to the Central Government to revoke their deemed university status. If they met the requirements they would be accorded recognition, he added.
G. Rajagopal, senior counsel for the Thanjavur-based SASTRA Deemed University, submitted that the institution was open to inspection irrespective of the agency involved in the process. He said all relevant information called for by the statutory agencies had already been submitted by the administration.
The UGC and the AICTE “have no idea how to maintain standards”, said former IIT Madras director PV Indiresan. “Their culture is bureaucratic; they think that national accreditation will do. Even a simple observation of the number of responsible assessors needed to monitor 17,000 odd colleges will show that centralised accreditation is not the answer.”
In a recent survey in Businessworld, 64 per cent of the recruiters surveyed said AICTE accreditation is not important. One of the top business schools in India — the Indian School of Business (ISB) — did not have AICTE accreditation. Madras HC moved againt Anna Varsity VC for holding a sensitive post in AICTE.
Who says office of profit issue is concerned only with politicians. In the case of Anna University VC you know which one is office of profit. Remember that one of the solutions in the AICTE (All Included Commission for offering Technical Education)Vs Tamilnadu Deemed Universities was that these deemed universities loosened their deemed status and get doomed meaning affiliated to Big Brother Anna University.
Is AICTE nod obligatory for deemed university?
AICTE had been immature and in many ways unprofessional. It was time that it became a truly professional outfit for guiding the growth of technical education in the country or packup and vanish.
Although AICTE was vested with statutory powers by an Act of Indian Parliament in 1987 with the mandate to organise, plan and administer technical education in the country, Way back in September 2001, the Supreme Court of India had given a judgment that it was not obligatory for a university, created under an Act of a competent legislature, to seek and secure prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE ) to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection.
The Supreme Court Bench which included Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju had set aside the verdict of the Madras High Court ( HC ) - which held that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant- Bharathidasan University to secure prior approval of the AICTE to commence the specified technical courses.
The Bench, on close analysis of the relevant provisions of the AICTE Act 1987, University Grants Commission Act, 1956, pointed out that the clear intention of the legislature ( in enacting the AICTE Act ) was not that all institutions whether university or otherwise ought to be treated as technical institutions covered by the ( AICTE ) Act.
The Bench had pointed out that if that was the intention, there was no difficulty for the legislature to have merely provided a definition of technical institution by not excluding university from the definition thereof and thereby avoided the necessity to use alongside both the words technical institutions and university in several provisions in the Act.
The Bench had also observed that the definition of technical institution excluded from its purview a university, and when by definition a university was excluded from a technical institution, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression technical institution occured will include a university will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein.
The Bench had further added that the power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned was covered by Section 10( k ) which would not cover a university but only a technical institution.
The Bench had noted that if Section 10 ( k ) of AICTE act did not cover a university but only a technical institution, a regulation could not be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution to apply for universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a university and a technical institution.
AICTE had been sponsoring short term training programmes at SRM Deemed University and today AICTE says SRM degrees were good for nothing!!. Probably there was no cooperation between the sponsorship cell of AICTE and Accreditation Cell of AICTE!!. It was time AICTE was accredited by someone competent.
Although, legally speaking, no technical institution was outside the AICTE's purview, it was only by convention that the Council did not exercise its statutory powers on institutions such as IITs and IIMs. If Law is same for everyone, why are there exceptions?
AICTE and Deemed University Case for Contra Proferentum Rule:
If in a legally enforceable agreement between two or more competent agencies any ambiguity arises, the interpretation should be against the party seeking to rely on it i.e. proferer or the person who drafted the document.
War clouds had gathered over the Madras High court in the sensational case between the Deemed universities and AICTE ( All India Council for Technical Education ) for which the final verdict is awaited.
The AICTE act 1987 states "To provide for establishment of an All India council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith."
The above makes it obligatory that for proper planning and regulation of quantitative growth and coordinated development of Technical Education, AICTE act should have included that universities deemed or otherwise must be required to take its approval for offering technical education.
The Supreme Court of India Bench Judgement in September 2001 had clearly stated that the power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned was covered by Section 10( k ) of AICTE Act which would not cover a university. It clearly emerged that AICTE nod was not obligatory for a university in this context.
If that was the case, then why was AICTE still claiming in its combined Regulations for Requirement of Grant of Approval which stated that "No course or programme shall be introduced by any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University or University Department or College" EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL.
However, AICTE claimed that the other Sections of the AICTE Act 1987 such as Section 10( o ) and 11 empowered the AICTE to prescribe guidelines for admissions and inspection of deemed universities.
It was clear that in the AICTE Act there was an ambiguity between the various Sections as one of them 10( k ) states that the term Technical Institution did not include University while AICTE claims that in other Sections the term Technical Institution included University.
If AICTE Act was an agreement regarding mutual responsibilities between two or more parties, then it amounted to a Contract between the Law Enforcers ( AICTE ) and the Law Abiders ( Deemed Universities ).
Contra Proferentum is the Rule that is applied when interpreting a clause, in an action that says that, where ambiguity as to a terms meaning exists, it should be read against the party who wrote it. That is, the preferred interpretation will be the one that helps the party who drafted it the least. The reasoning behind this Rule is to encourage the drafter of the agreement to be as clear and explicit as possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as possible.
Clearly, the drafters of the AICTE Act had failed in this account and they had to face the music of Contra Proferentum Rule and let the Deemed Universities retain their autonomy in birth as well as functioning. Whoever gave birth to Deemed University only should hold the right to ring the Death Bell for them and middle men of the AICTE kind should keep safe distance.
According to the Vice Chancellor of the Anna University Prof D Viswanathan, there were four lakh engineering graduates unemployed in Tamilnadu and the writing on the wall was clear that bulk of this number came from the so called AICTE approved Institutions in Tamilnadu and not the Deemed Universities !!!!.
Although, legally speaking, no technical institution was outside the AICTE's purview, it was only by convention that the Council did not exercise its statutory powers on institutions such as IIT's and IIM's. If Law is same for everyone, why are there exceptions? Now read the following and decide.
As per latest news, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi has been facing a severe shortage of faculty.
Twenty-four departments in IIT-D are short-staffed. "There are 72 vacant positions for professors, associate professors, and assistant professors," according to Assistant Director(administration) D.P. Kothari.
AICTE's policies regarding conformance to their academic policies are fairly rigid. It is an improper move to declare such a notice after everyone has committed themselves to an institute. I don't understand the point in removing institutes which have been successful from their inception. As said in the post, it is the facilities that need to be checked and as long as the standards are complied with AICTE should have no trouble with these insititutes.
It is not just the recognition part ,but a bigger malaise that is eating the system. Spare a thought for the faculty at such establishments. Most of the lecturers are in the transitional mode between their own graduation and a real job.
A typical visit by the AICTE team would be characterized by sprucing up of the lawns & facilities. Endless plates of Kaju and Baadam would be consumed and Cola bottles circulated. ExIIT professors ( alleged visting faculty )would mysteriously appear in full strength and disappear just as suddenly till another team arrives... .
Every year NASSCOM comes out with figures that the IT sector is falling short of qualified manpower..on the other hand we are churning out Engineers faster than bunny litter...
The solution is not in the hands of the government. The corporate sector would have to assume greater role...update the curriculum, engage the faculty and actually authenticate the utility by recruiting from the less fortunate colleges.
Expansion by itself is not a bad thing - doing so without inadequate teachers, facilities etc is what needs to be checked.
Between the out and out commercialism (of colleges) and the out and out bureacucracy (of AICTE) lies a middle ground which desperately needs to be explored.
No comments:
Post a Comment