APPENDIX `B' AGENDA PAPERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CENTRAL ADVISORY BOARD OF EDUCATION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Dates of Meeting 6th and 7th August, 1965
Place VIGYAN BHAWAN.
Time 10-30 A.M.
ITEMS FOR AGENDA
1. Report of the Committee of the Members of Parliament on Higher Education (Ministry of Education)
2. Report of the Committee on Model Act for Universities. (Ministry of Education)
3. Promotion, of Higher Education through Evening Colleges. (Ministry of Education)
4. Promotion of Higher Education through Correspondence Courses (Ministry of Education)
5. Tentative proposals for Higher Education in the Fourth Five Year Plan (Ministry of Education)
6. Implementation and development of the programme of education in international understanding in furtherance of EastWest Major Project and Associated Schools Project of Unesco. (Ministry of Education)
7. Problems created by the increasing rush of students for admission to Colleges. (Govt. of Kerala)
8. Separate Education for Boys and Girls in Schools and Colleges (Govt. of Kerala)
9. Pattern of Central assistance in the Fourth Five Year Plan. (Govt. of Gujarat)
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION August 6 and 7, 1965
Item No. 1: Report of the Committee of the Members of Parliament on
Higher Education. (Ministry of Education)
There has been for a long time a pronounced trend in favour of the Central Government assuming greater responsibility in the sphere of higher education. In fact the University Education (Radhakrishnan) Commission (1948-49), while considering the problem of university education,had recommended that the all-India aspects of university education,the repercussions and interchanges necessary and desirable between universities, and the need for a national guarantee of minimum standards of efficiency require that university education should be a concurrent responsibility of the Centre and the States.
297
298
2. For some time past the demand has been renewed in Parliament and outside it that the Central Government should play a more effective role in the sphere of higher education. A resolution was also moved at a meeting of the Informal Consultative Committee of Members of Parliament on Education recommending that university education should be made a Union subject. Suggestions were made that the country should have a more or less uniform pattern of higher education. As the matter required detailed examination of the basic issues involved, it was referred for consideration to a Committee of Members of Parliament under the Chairmanship of Shri P. N. Sapru, Member of the Rajya Sabha, with the following terms of reference:
(a) To examine the provisions of the Constitution regarding the responsibility of the Central Government in the field of higher education with a view to finding out the extent to which the Centre could assume greater responsibility in this field ; and
(b) to suggest appropriate steps to be taken for the purpose.
The Committee submitted its report in July, 1964
3. Copies of the report of the Committee were sent by the Ministry to all State Governments, the concerned Ministries of the Government of India as well as to the University Grants Commission. The recommendations of the Committee are summarised in Annexure XVI. Some of the important recommendations together with the views of the various bodies to which the report has been referred to, wherever they have been received, are given below for consideration :
(1) University and Higher Education as Concurrent Subject The Committee has recommended that University and higher education should be transferred from the State List to the Concurrent List, retaining intact Entry 66 in the Union List.
The recommendation has been referred to the State Governments for their views. So far the Governments of (i) Andhra Pradesh, (ii) Gujarat, (iii) Kerala, (iv) Madras, (v) Maharashtra, (vi) Mysore, (vii) Orissa, and (viii) West Bengal have sent their replies saying that they are not in favour of making any change in the existing position. Replies from other State Governments are awaited. While no written reply has been received from the Government of Punjab, the Chief Minister of Punjab is reported to have agreed to place education on the Concurrent List.
(2) Pay-Scales of Teachers in Affiliated Colleges The Committee has recommended that steps should be taken to see that more and more colleges adopt the pay-scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission for affiliated colleges.
The University Grants Commission, to whom the recommendation was referred to, is strongly in favour of improving the scales of pay of teachers in affiliated colleges. Replies received from the State Governments so far reveal that most of them have adopted the scales of pay recommended by University Grants Commission for teachers of affiliated colleges.
299
(3) Professional Education Within UGC's Purview The Committee has recommended that professional education including Medical (Basic), Agricultural Engineering and Law should. also come within the purview of the University Grants Commission.
(4) Single-Faculty Universities The Committee is not in favour of single-faculty universities, for neither the literatures, nor philosophies, nor sciences can be separated one from the other. Nevertheless, the Committee recognises that there is a place in our educational system for institutions of national status specialising in various disciplines.
The University Grants Commission is generally in favour of this recommendation.
(5) Prior Consultation with UGC for Establishment of new Univer-
sities The Committee has recommended that the UGC Act should be so amended as to make it obligatory on the part of a State Government to consult the Commission before setting up a new university. The UGC Act should have a specific provision which would enable the Commission to consistently refuse to give any financial aid to universities established without its prior consultation.
The University Grants Commission agrees with the recommendation.
(6) Emissions The Committee has recommended that the universities should pursue a common policy in regard to admissions and that admission, particularly to professional institutions be based upon merit con- sistently with due regard to the interest of Scheduled Castes, Sche- duled Tribes and other socially and educationally backward classes of society.
The University Grants Commission agrees with the recommendation.
(7) Central Institution in each State The Committee has recommended that the Centre can play a greater part in promoting higher education by establishing at least one Central institution of the highest standard in every State to serve as an example to other educational institutions in the State.
The University Grants Commission has supported this recom- mendation. It is, however, of the view that priority should be given to the improvement of existing institutions until larger funds are placed at the disposal of the University Grants Commission.
Similar recommendation was also made by the Education Ministers' Conference held in November, 1962.
(8) Morning And Evening Colleges The Committee has recommended that morning and evening
colleges and correspondence courses should be established for the benefit of those who are unable to pursue regular courses.
The University Grants Commission has welcomed the recommendation. The State Governments have generally supported this recommendation.
ANNEXURE XVI
SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF MEMBERS OF
PARLIAMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Sapru Committee 1. University and Higher education should be transferred from the State List to the Concurrent List, retaining intact Entry 66 in the Union List.
2. The University Grants Commission should have 15 Members, of whom at least five should be full time Members. They should be persons of the status of Vice-Chancellors. Serving Vice- Chancellors should, however, not be appointed as Members of the Commission. The composition of the Commission should be such as to give no impression to the public that it is not completely independent.
3. In the Fourth Five Year Plan, a very much larger amount should be placed at the disposal of the Commission.
4. It has been recommended that as the system of matching grants has not worked satisfactorily, depending upon the merits of the case, the conditions of grant should be liberalised.
5. The University Grants Commission should recognise, in consultation with universities concerned, more and more institutions, as provided in clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, for purposes of financial aid.
6. Steps should be taken to see that more and more colleges adopt the pay scales prescribed by the Commission for affiliated colleges.
7. Professional education including Medical (Basic), Agricul- tural, Engineering and Law should also come within the purview of the University Grants Commission.
8. Vigorous steps should be taken to improve the quality of secondary education.
9. The number of scholarships and sizerships for university education and research should be considerably increased in institutions of higher education.
10. The number of scholarships and sizerships for higher educa- tion for women students should be considerably increased.
11. The Committee is not in favour of single-faculty universi- ties, for neither the literatures, nor philosophies nor sciences can be separated one from the other. Nevertheless, the Committee recognizes that there is a place in our educational system for institutions of national status specializing in various disciplines.
300
301
12. The University Grants Commission Act should be so amended as to make it obligatory on the part of a State Government to consult the Commission before setting up a new university. The University Grants Commission Act should have specific provision which would enable the Commission to consistently refuse to give any financial aid to universities established without its prior consultation.
13. Convention should be formally established for frequent consultations with State Governments and universities on all important policy issues. The Inter-University Board should be made a more effective body and it should more and more be regarded as the spokesman of university opinion.
14. The universities should pursue a common policy in regard to admissions and that admissions particularly to professional institutions be based upon merit consistently with due regard to the interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other socially and educationally backward classes of society.
15. The Centre can play a greater part in promoting higher education by establishing at least one Central institution of the highest standard in every State to serve as an example to other educational institutions in the State.
16. Morning and evening colleges and correspondence courses should be established for the benefit of those who are unable to pursue regular courses.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION August 6 and 7, 1965
Item No. 2: Report of the Committee on Model Act for Universities.
(Ministry of Education)
The Ministry of Education appointed in December, 1961 a Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. D. S. Kothari, Chairman, University Grants Commission to consider broadly the organisational structure of the universities in India and to prepare the outline of a `Model Act' suited to their role and functions in the present context of our fast developing society. The Committee submitted its report in January, 1965.
2. A copy of the report of the Committee has been sent by the Union Education Minister to the Chief Ministers of States. Copies of the report have also been sent to all the universities and the State Governments for information and suitable action.
3. The main recommendations of the Committee are summarised in Annexure XVII. The various issues together with the views of the Ministry based on the decisions taken in connection with the
302
Banaras Hindu University (Amendment) Bill, 1964, which is at present before the Joint Committee of the Parliament, are given below for consideration :
(1) Appointment of Vice-Chancellor The Committee on `Model Act for Universities' is unable to recommend any one pattern as the most suitable one for all the universities in India for the appointment of a vice-chancellor. The Committee, however, indicates preference for the following two modes, namely
(i) that the vice-chancellor should be nominated by the Visitor/ Government in the early stages; and
(ii) that he should ordinarily be elected by the Court from among three persons recommended by a majority of the members of the Executive Council. Whatever be the mode the aim should be to secure the best person available. The Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished educationist or scholar with administrative experience.
In the Banaras Hindu University (Amendment) Bill it has been decided to follow the Delhi pattern for the appointment of vice- chancellor. According to this pattern the vice-chancellor is appointed by the Visitor from a panel of not less than three persons recommended by a Committee consisting of three members, two of whom, not connected with the university are nominated by the Executive Council and one nominated by, the Visitor who appoints one of the three members to be the chairman of the Committee.
(2) Tenure of Vice-Chancellor The Committee has recommended that the term of office of a vice- chancellor should be five years; he should not normally be appointed for more than two terms in the same university, subject to any retiring age that may be fixed.
In his dissenting note Shri S. R. Das, a member of the Committee, for the reasons stated therein, has commended for consideration the appointment of a vice-chancellor initially for a period of three years, and in case he shows good promise, his term may be extended by another three years and if within six years he shows some concrete results then he may be given a third term of six years. He is also not in favour of fixing a rigid age limit for the appointment or re- appointment of a vice-chancellor.