AUTHORITIES, BODIES AND COMMITTEES
[Senate . Syndicate . Boards of Studies . Collegiate Council . Faculty Council . Grievance Redressal Machinery Other bodies and Committees]
The scheme of classificaion of universities may be listed as follows:
[a] From the sponsoring Central Universities
Government angle and State Universites
[b] From the Structural point of Unitary or Residential
view Universities, Affiliating
Universities & Open
Universities.
[c] From the Status point of Deemed Universities &
view Universities proper.
[d] From the scope/role point of General Universities
view and Specialised/
Technical Universities
including National
Institutes such as
Indian Institutes of
Technology, Indian
Institute of Science,
Medical Univeristies,
Women's Universities,
Language Universities,
etc.,
Of course, the above schemes of classification are not mutually exclusive. But such typification enables us to understand the structure / roles of different categories of Universities from their own perspectives and also the relevance of the various Authorities and Bodies under different contexts.
The Authorities and Bodies can be broadly divided into (a) Statutory (b) Non-Statutory. Among the Statutory Authorities, there are three major apex bodies viz. Senate (known as Court in some Universities), Syndicate (known as Executive Council in some Universities) and Academic Council. These three bodies have been traditionally performing the functions of general policy making (Senate), decision making and implementation (Syndicate) and framing of academic regulations and related matters (Academic Council).
150
The above Statutory Bodies are usually referred to as University Authorities., Their composition / constitution, power / functions and inter-relationship among them - are determined by the Act of State legislature or Parliament or left to be laid down by Statutes. There are other Statutory bodies such as Faculty and Board of Studies, Finance Committee, Selection Committees etc., whose composition and authority are derived from the University Statutes. While the University System does not have much built-in flexibility in the role and constitution of its Authorities, it has some say over other Statutory Bodies, Besides the above Statutory Bodies, there are the Committees appointed by the Authorities and or Vice-Chancellor. These are non-statutory in character and hence may or may not be permanent in nature.
While the composition and character (including the hierarchial inter-relationship) of the University Authorities may vary between Universities, the three tiersystem exists in almost all the State and Central Universities of general nature. The specialised Universities or technical Universities (eg. Anna University of Technology, Madras; University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore; University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh; Punjab Agricultural University etc) do not have Senate; the usual functions of the Senate are carried out by the Academic Council. The so- called Court / Senate General Council in some of the unitary Universities Deemed Universities IITs, etc. is not the Senate in the conventional sense; it is a mere advisory /review body consisting mostly of the campus faculties.For instance, in the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,the 'Senate" is only a de-facto Academic Council. The separation of roles of different organs of the University System would not only avoid duplication but also spell out their individual responsibilities and hence accountabilities. There are three broad streams in administrative work viz., policy framing, formulation of procedures [rules and regulations] and actual implementation. The University authorities (Executive Council and Academic Council], assisted by the respective bodies and committees, should have the purview of policy framing; formulation of the contingent rules and regulations of administrative procedures could be left to the bodies and committees; the actual implementation should be the responsibilitiy of the Officers of the University.
151
10.0. AUTHORITIES
10.0.1 THE SENATE The Senate, in many Universities, is Supreme policy maker; it is a large body consisting of representatives from various social groups. The function of the Senate is not only statute making but also acting as a social forum where the University's performance is reviewed and appraised; further it gives a semblance of democratisation of University administration and societal participation in its management. Perhaps, Senate is a unique Open House, wherein we can get the social feed-back about the University from wider cross- sections of the community. But since a large proportion of its membership consists of academics (mostly in exofficio capacities), the societal aspect does not get adequate representation in many Universities.
The existing pattern of Senate composition in State Universities, which are of affiliating type, suffers from the following constraints: All affiliated colleges need to be represented through their Principals (ex-officio) and teachers from various affiliated colleges and others are also elected as senate members, and hence the number is too large and unwieldy in larger Universities to provide a conducive scope for serious deliberations. Notwithstanding the fact that the affiliated colleges can partake in University management only by getting due and equitable representation on the University Authorities, especially, the Senate, they do not by and large do so. The college Principals in the Senate generally feel that their representation in the Senate is rather ceremonial or customary rather than functional. The Senate deliberations are mostly dominated by (nonacademic) elected members, even on issues that are not strictly policy related.
However, it is felt by some that the Senate does create noise; and it is suggested that the noise has some purpose. The Syndicate is compelled to be conscious of the impending and vociferous criticism it may have to face in an open general body such as Senate. So it has some sobering influence and puts some restraint on the executive power of the Syndicate which would otherwise go unchecked. The very fear of criticism and exposure in the Senate is likely to mend the ways of the Syndicate. It is felt by some that without a Senate we cannot ensure proper accountability and audit of the Syndicate's role, though others feel that the final accountability reports should be enough.
The Senate in the Unitary Universities and Specialised Technological Universities is generally of a smaller size, with due representation from almost all sections of the campus faculty in addition to other nominees from various
152
other social / legislative / academic interests. The focus and the scope of the Senate in these institutions are also more academic and purposeful. The annual reports, audited accounts and the budget proposals when presented to the Senate, are discussed more seriously in these small-size Senate bodies.
In those affiliating Universities where the Senate is relatively small and composed of only or mostly of the nominated ex-officio members (e.g. Kakatiya University, University of Allahabad, Kurukshetra University), the experience indicates fairly academic and less political style of functioning of the Senate.
Another dimension of the role of Senate as an apex organ is that of the Senate being envisaged as a deliberative and discussant body (as in Patna University, Bharathiar & Bharathidasan University Acts), rather than a prescriptive and controlling one as in some other Universities. The negative or unacademic effects of Senate can be minimised if not avoided in such a case. The powers of the Senate may include the following (as given for instance in Bharathiar. University & Bharathidasan University Acts, 1982):
[a] to review, from time to time, the broad policies and programmes of the University and to suggest measures for the improvement and development of the University;
[b] to advise the Chancellor in respect of any matter which may be referred to it for advice: and
[c] to exercise such other powers and such other functions as may be prescribed in the Statutes."
The Statutes of Bharathidasn University (1983) as given under are more specific about the role of the Senate via-a vis Syndicate:
The Senate shall:-
[a] consider Annual Report of the University;
[b) consider the audited annual accounts of the University;
[c] consider Ordinances made by the Syndicate;
[d] consider regulations made by the Standing Committee on Academic Affairs;
[e] consider the report on affiliated colleges presented by the Syndicate at the end of every three years".
153
It may be noted here that the Senate is to consider and discuss; its approval has not been made mandatory;
".... If any resolution is passed by the Senate, the Syndicate shall take action as it deems fit whenever necessary.... The Syndicate may either accept or reject the proposal contained in such resolution".
Thus, the above provisions of the Act / Statutes of one of the most recently established State Universities can serve as model frame to design the Senate to play a useful advisory / recommendatory role from the social point of view. Such a 'social-monitoring' of higher education system becomes logically necessary and relevant particularly in the Indian context where a substantial part of the cost of higher education is borne and subsidised by the society.
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONING, IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE TO RETAIN THE SENATE BUT IN A DIFFERENT FORM AND CONTENT, may be under a different name (say, Consultative Committee of Society or Societal Consultative Council [SCC] indicative of the newer role to be assigned to it. It should be a Statutory Body consisting mostly or only of nominated / ex- officio members; the size shall be subject to a maximum of 100 members in large affiliating Universities and fewer in Unitary and smaller affliating, universities; the composition shall include a few representatives from the University and College faculties, Chairmen of Boards of Studies, Students, elected representatives of the local bodies / municipal council / State Assembly, Voluntary Agencies, Social workers, industrialists, technocrats, etc.
The role / powers of this Council should provide for uninhibited discussions / comments / suggestions and in short, a societal reflection of the academic performance of the University system. IT WOULD LARGELY BE A DELIBERATIVE BODY AND WOULD REVIEW, FROM TIME TO TIME, THE BROAD POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES OF THE UNIVERSITY AND COULD SUGGEST MEASURES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY. IT WOULD ALSO RECEIVE THE ANNUAL REPORTS, ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REPORTS OF THE UNIVERSITY. IT WILL, HOWEVER NOT BE AN AUTHORITY OF THE UNIVERSITY.
10.0.2.THE SYNDICATE The executive decision making and implementaion are concentrated in the Syndicate (or the Executive Council or the Board of Management). The Syndicate, in actual practice, wields enormous powers, often more than contemplated in the Act / Statutes. The proceedings in the Senate and the Academic Council are regulated by the Syndicate as a result of some statutory provisions. On many occasions, the Senate or the Acdemic Council is constrained to ratify what has already been decided upon and
154
even implemented by the Syndicate. The concentration of powers, administrative, financial and to a considerable extent academic also - in the Syndicate naturally leads to evolution of vested interests among its members. The Vice- Chancellor and other officers are forced to satisfy the demands of the Syndicate members to have smooth sailing in administration, and some times the most powerful of Syndicate members turns out to be a 'do-facto' Vice-Chancellor.
Among the shortcomings of the role and composition of the Syndicate, the following points deserve special mention:
[a] The Syndicate in many affiliating universities is dominated by elected members and non-academics unlike in some Unitary universities.
[b] When the number of terms a person can get elected to the Syndicate (University of Madras till recently; Pune University etc) is unrestricted, there is every possibility of emergence of some powerful vested interests into this Authority and endanger the Judicious execrise of powers.
[c] There has been a tendency on the part of many State Governments to thrust as many of their nominees into the Syndicate as possible. When the Syndicate is thus under the virtual siege of the Government nominees and Govt. Ex-officio members, University Autonomy is practically strangled. For instance, in some Universities the ex-officio members of the Syndicate include four Directors: Collegiate Education, Medical Education, Technical Education, Legal Education and three Secretaries: Education, Health and law. These seven ex-officio Government officers are in the Syndicate in addition to three nominees of the Chancellor. Thus, out of the total 18 members of the Syndicate as many as 10 members are from the Government side.
[d] The heavy concentration of powers in this Authority has led to the erosion of independence of Academic Council relating to framing of regulations; as per the Statutes, many members of the Academic Council (Chairman of Board of Studies) are to be appointed by the Syndicate or the Vice-Chancellor; the academic regulations, as passed by the Academic Council, cannot be implemented without the approval of the Syndicate.
[e] Since all the Syndicate members happen to be the ex-officio-members, in many universities, in the Senate and Academic Council and some in other Bodies also, there has been a visibly overwhelming domination by the Syndicate on other bodies which affect their independent deliberations.
155
[f] Some of the routine administrative decisions which can be handled by the Departments or University Officers themselves, are being vested with the Syndicate, leaving very little scope for speedy and decentralised day-to- day administration. After all, the statutory officers are also accountable under the Act Statute and hence the responsibility of decision making need not be totally usurped by the Syndicate.
Thus the locale of Syndicate in the University Organisational structure needs to be reviewed in view of the above observations. If may be restyled as follows:
[1] THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT [AS IT MAY HE REDESIGNATED TO REFLECT THE BROADER MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES] should restrict the Govt. representatives / nominees to not more than one third of the total size of the Syndicate. Half of the membership should be from amongst college Principals- Teachers/University teachers, and the remaining one-sixth from other interests, such as industry and trade, external academics, etc. Not more than 1/3 of the Board Members (Syndicate) should be represented in other University Bodies such as Senate and Academic Council.
[2] It should not have the power to approve the academic Statues /Ordinances / Regulations passed by the Academic Council except where it has sizeable financial/ administrative implications.
[3] It should delegate some of the routine administrative decisions to the statutory officers especially the Vice- Chancellor/ Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Deans, Heads subject to their being accountable for their decisions and actions to the Board of Management /(Syndicate).
[4] It should seek recommendations from and implement the decisions of other Statutory Bodies such as Planning Board, Finance Committee, Collegiate Council, Tribunal, Grievance Cell etc.,