320
Involvement of voluntary organisations
(Recommendation No.309) 2.17 Recommendation has no policy implication.
2.18 The Committee notes that NPE and POA assign a major role to voluntary agencies and activist groups in the educational process and development.The Committee advocates transparency in the functions of these organisations.It also suggests that the Government must respond to the initiative of voluntary organisations rather than expecting the voluntary agencies to respond to governmental programmes. These propositions are unexceptional.
Coordination and Convergence of Services (Recommendation No.310)
2.19 Recommendation has no Policy implication.
2.20 The Committee observes that the objective of creating the Ministry of Human Resource Development was not achieved. Departments of the Ministry function without any coordination. There is no convergence of the services in the field. Institutional mechanism needs to be set up to promote coordination within the Ministry, One possible mechanism is the setting up of a standing committee of the Secretaries of all the four Departments of the Ministry which should meet periodically,interact and formulate strategies and programmes in areas of commonality.
321
2. 21 Convergence of the various development programmes in the field is a perennial theme. Going by the past experience,convergency cannot be achieved through a single multi-level functionary in the State. In fact community development started with a single multi- purpose functionary, viz., village level worker. Over the years some of the developmental departments began to have their own functionaries in villages for implementing their programmes. It is unlikely that this process can be reversed. Convergence need not be integration. Convergence can be achieved with a vibrant Panchayat which demands accountability from all the functioanries, in the village, as well as by more effective local area planning.
Central Institutions Functioning Style
(Recommendation No.311) 2.22 The Committee observes that institutions like the NCERT and UGC should bring about a sea change in their style of functioning; they should confine themselves to the role of co-ordination and providing resource support and allow institutions in the State and sub-State levels to take initiatives and to bring about educational reforms in the areas of their competence in a way relevant to the local circumstances. It is keeping this in view that recommendations have been given in the relevant chapters for local area planning on matters such as formulation of curriculum packages, preparation of designs and courses for vocational
322
education, designing of university level courses, etc.
2.23 The NCERT has been playing a catalytic and resource sharing role rather than directing, determining and detailing all processes in their interactions with the State and sub-State level institutions in matters related to qualitative improvement in school education. This is evident from the modalities adopted in the preparation of syllabi, development of instructional materials, and training of teachers. Similarly in the development of curriculum and textbooks, the editorial board set up for the purpose included experts at the grass- root levels from the States as well. The Primary Science Kits were developed in consultation with practicising primary school teachers and teacher educators working in the States.
2.24 The U.G.C. Act does not confer any enforcement powers on the University Grants Commission. Even in such totally noncontroversial matters like using the word "university" by fake institutions, Sections 23 and 24 of the UGC Act require such institution/person to be prosecuted in a court of law which may result in imposing fine. The UGC has no executive functions. The maximum coercive power available to UGC under the UGC Act is that it can deny grants to a university/college which does not fulfil the conditions prescribed by the UGC Regulations.
No policy implications
Operational areas of NCERT and UGC broadly conform to the role envisaged by the Committee
323
Proper implementation of the approach is conditioned by the availability and effective functioning of appropriate institutions at the State level
Centrally Sponsored Schemes
(Recommendation No.312) 2.25 In regard to Centrally Sponsored Schemes, two competing strands of thoughts figured before the NPERC. The first one stressed federal principles, decentralisation and local area planning. In this perspective there was no justification for the continuance of Centrally Sponsored Schemes. The second view strongly advocated continuance of Centrally Sponsored Schemes in the field of education resting its advocacy on the principle of concurrency. The Committee sought to deftly strike a balance between these two contradictory stands and took a middle course by suggesting continuance of the ongoing Centrally Sponsored Schemes till 1992-93 and undertaking a review of the implementation of the Schemes before the end of that year. It had also suggested that no new Centrally Sponsored Schemes should be initiated unless they are for the purpose of securing decentralisation of education management at the grass root. The Committee noted that normally Centrally Sponsored Schemes run for a full Five Year Plan period and going by this practice the Centrally Sponsored Schemes started in pursuance of NPE had to be continued till 1992. The Committee also noted that sudden discontinuance of these schemes lead to disruption of all initiatives already taken in the crucial areas.
324
2.26 While the Committee should be commended for adopting a pragmatic view, it has not gone far enough to appreciate the implication of concurrency. By virtue of Education being in the concurrent list, the Union Government has to play a meaningful role. The Centrally Sponsored Schemes in education are justified for the following reasons:
- Practically, all the Centrally Sponsored Schemes in Education Sector relate to three categories: (a) extension of the facility of education to the deprived sections; (b) improvement of quality of education; and (c) involvement of voluntary agencies.
- While the State Governments do see the urgency and necessity of providing funds for education, because of competing demands from other sectors of development, they tend to give comparatively lower priority for education with the result that programmes relating to crucial areas of education like Adult Literacy, Non- Formal Education, etc., are given only very low priority.
- The programmes for improvement of quality, (such as improvement of primary schools, teacher education, science teaching, etc.) take a long time to show results. Practically, every State in the country is concerned with expansion of facilities which seem to them to satisfy the aspirations of the people better, and cannot devote adequate resources to programmes for improvement of quality.
- Some of the Centrally Sponsored Schemes got off to a
325
good start and they have to be sustained. For example, Educational Technology is entirely dependent on Central Government decisions - on there being a transponder in the satellite, TV/AIR time availability etc. Vocationalisation of Secondary Education was started in 1977 as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, but was transferred to the State Sector in 1979, and, as a result, the Scheme was actually discontinued by practically all the States. This is also true of the Computer Literacy Project (CLASS), which has started, but with very insufficient outlays.
- The Centrally Sponsored Schemes of Education Sector relate mostly to the rural areas - as much as 80 per cent of expenditure is incurred in rural areas.
-National integration is today the supreme challenge. Whatever reservation some section may have towards inclusion of Education in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, we have to use the instrument of Education for reducing regional and social disparities, for engendering the spirit of optimism and patriotism among children and youth, and for accepting new challenges in human development.It is unrealistic to think that States like UP, Bihar,J&K and Rajasthan will come equal to Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra without strong Central intervention.
-Need for a suitable Central role in all areas of education has been strongly supported by the Sarkaria commission.
326
As the Eighth Plan would now commence from 1992-93, it would be necessary to review the ongoing Centrally Sponsored Schemes and make such modifications as may be required to make them more effective. It would also be necessary to introduce a few more Centrally Sponsored Schemes in other priority areas like secondary education, educationally backward minorities, and management of education.
Education being a concurrent subject, Central Government would have to play a meaningful role.
Strong justification for continuance of Centrally sponsored Schemes in the VIII Plan.
. National Integration
. Improvement of quality of Education
. Lack of resources with State Government
. Schemes begun well will have to be pushed further
. Beneficiaries are mostly rural people
. Remove inter-state disparities in educational development
New Centrally Sponsored Schemes also needed in priority areas.
Grievances Redressal
(Recommendation No.220) 2.27 The NPERC presents in brief the recommendation of the Law Commission (123rd Report) which suggested the setting up of a three- tier structure for redressal of grievances in the higher
327
education system. These threetiers include a Forum at the grassroot level for the redressal of grievances, a State Level Tribunal and a Central Tribunal.
2.28 The recommendations of the Law Commission for the establishment of a Central Educational Tribunal is part of a significant social movement for enforming the legal system by simplification of procedures and de-centralisation of administration of justice. The task of recommending exhaustive and comprehensive judicial reforms for saving the judicial system from utter collapse was given to the Law Commission. The Law Commission opined that a society without a system of efficient administration of justice in a parliamentary democracy is inconceivable and that in certain well defined areas, tribunals should be set up so as to relieve the congestion and burden on the generalist courts, to be precise the High Courts and Supreme Court, thereby achieving the most desirable results of speedy and expeditious disposals of disputes, avoiding strife and tensions in the society.
2.29 The Commission held that Education is a specialised area where tribunals can be set up. After citing the Constitutional provisions and the Case Law on the subject (for example S.P.Sampath Kumar vs Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386) the commission opined that, Parliament was competent, under entry 11A of the Concurrent List of the Constitution, to make a law setting up education tribunals. The Commission, however, stressed that the personnel appointed to and procedures adopted by tribunals should be such that they inspire confidence. The Supreme Court
328
Case Law cited, which related to the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, held that excluding the jurisdiction of the High Courts even the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, would not be unconstitutional provided the law sets up another effective institutional mechanism or authority and vests the power of the judicial review in it.
2.30 The Commission noted that in the field of higher education there are three types of disputes:
Category 1 Students' problems - admission,rustication, copying, etc.
Category 2 Problems of teachers and administrative staff seniority, promotion service conditions, etc.
Category 3 Problems concerning Vice-Chancellors, the relationship between the University and State Governments, Chancellors, regarding matters of finance and other issues of policy.
All these categories of disputes were to be adjusted by the education tribunals. The State Level Tribunals would have original and appellate jurisdiction. The appellate jurisdiction would be in respect of disputes falling in regard to Category 1 and 2.The original jurisdiction would be in disputes under Category 3.The Central Tribunal would provide the second appellate forum. It would also have original jurisdiction in respect of Category 3 disputes of Central universities.
2.31 While the recommendation of the Law Commission in this regard is still under examination by the Ministry in consultation
329
with the UGC, the following recommendation has been made by a committee of Chief Justices of High Courts set up by Government in January, 1989:
"The existing laws already provided exclusive forum for the resolution of disputes relating to discipline and service conditions of a class of employees in the field of education. The Institutional Disputes Act, 1947 is one of such laws to which resort can be had by a person who is covered by the expression "workman". The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Administrative Tribunals thereunder could provide yet another exclusive remedy in service matters to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the University,provided the appropriate Government issues a notification applying the relevant provisions of Section 14 or Section 15, as the case may be, to the Universities.
Disputes of other nature involving Universities and other centres of higher education do not require specialised attention. The Committee does not agree with the view that these matters cannot be satisfactorily dealt with for want of requisite expertise or otherwise in regular forums. The law establishing a separate forum to deal with all disputes involving Universities and other centres of higher education would not be able to provide for the exclusion of the writ jurisdiction. Article 323-A cannot be invoked except in respect of service matters. Article
330
323-B cannot also be resorted to because it does not authorise the appropriate legislature by law to provide for adjudication of any dispute concerning education or involving education institutions. Unless articles 226 and 227 are amended, the writ jurisdiction cannot be excluded. The Committee is not in favour of such amendment.
The establishment of the three tier machinery recommended in the 122nd (sic) Report of the Law Commission may, at best, enable the flow of writ petitions being checked by insistence on the requirement of exhaustion of the alternative remedy."
2.32 It will be seen that the recommendation of the Chief Justices Committee is by and large against the tribunalisation of justice in the university system. However, the University Grants Commission is considering the matter in all its aspects.
2.33 A related area which has not yet been considered by the Law Commission is in regard to litigation involving the State Governments in respect of the following categories of disputes which spread across various sectors of education:
Category 1 Problems of teachers and administrative staff sensiority
promotion, service conditions, etc.
Category 2 Disputes under the Education Acts, codes, manuals,etc.
such as grant of permission to open a new educational
institution, recognition of educational institutions,
admission to grant-in-aid.
331
2.34 The Law Commission has noted that the judicial system is on he verge of utter collapse because of the complexity of education. It can likewise be said that the State Education Departments are in, a state of utter despair because of the proliferation of litigation. In fact, educational administrators have little time for educational issues and educational programmes. If the educational system has to function, it would be necessary to evolve proper systems of grievance redressal.The tribunalisation recommended by the Law Commission in its 123rd Report may offer a solution. The constitution of specialised State Level Educational Tribunals may save the State Education Departments as well as the judicial system from imminent collapse. It is for consideration whether, to begin with, these tribunals should attend to Category I litigation or whether they should straightaway attend to both Category 1 and Category 2 litigation.