 VISITOR AND OFFICERS OF THE
 UNIVERSITY

The principal officers and authorities of the university should be the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor or the Rector, the Court (or the Senate), the Executive Council (or the Syndicate), the Academic Council, the Faculties, Board of Studies and Research Committees.

The committee after carefully considering the matter came to the conclusion that it would be desirable for a university to have a Visitor: He will not be an officer of the university. The functions and powers of the Visitor should be similar to those exercised by the President of India in his capacity as Visitor of the Central Universities.

The Visitor

The President of India in the case of Central Universities and the Governor of the State concerned in the case of State Universities should be the Visitor of the universities. The Visitor should not be included in the list of officers of the university but should have an independent position constituting a link between the Government and the university. The Visitor should have the powers to direct inspection of or inquiry into the affairs of the university, its buildings, laboratories, and equipment and of any institution maintained by the university and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted by the university. The procedure for such inspection or inquiry or for annulling proceedings may be laid down appropriately by the Act and Statutes. The power of the Visitor should be regarded as a special power to be used sparingly and not for the day-to-day working of the university.

The powers now suggested for the Visitor are already vested in the President of India as Visitor of the Central Universities. In the case of most of the State Universities, the power of enquiring into the affairs of the university when things go wrong is vested directly in the State Governments. The recommendation now made is that it should not be the State Government but the Governor in his capacity as Visitor that should exercise this power. It should be in keeping with the status of a university that action of this type when needed, would be taken by the Visitor.

OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY

The Chancellor

The Chancellorship should be an office of honour to which a person may be elected by the Court. It might be desirable to establish a convention

under which, say the Chief justice of the High Court or a person held in similar esteem is elected to this office. In the University of Delhi, for example, the Chancellor is elected by the Court but by convention, the Court has always been electing the Vice-President of India as Chancellor. In certain circumstances it might be possible to elect a distinguished former Vice-Chancellor to this office. The Chancellor may preside at convocations of the University and other ceremonial functions. The terms of office and other details pertaining to the Chancellorship may be determined by Statutes.

The Chancellor, by virtue of his position and eminence in public life, could be of assistance to the university in settling conflicts and smoothening generally the relationship between various authorities of the universities.

The Vice-Chancellor

The Vice-Chancellor is by far the most important functionary in a university, not only on the administrative side but also for securing the right atmosphere for the teachers and the students to do their work effectively and in the right spirit. His duties and responsibilities and the qualities needed for bearing them have been described as follows in the Report by the Committee on Higher Education appointed by Prime Minister under the chairmanship of Lord Robbins in the United Kingdom:

"676. This leads us to the position of the Vice- Chancellor or Principal. His is a role which, probably unfortunately, is seldom precisely spelt out in written constitutions. Yet it would be difficult to overstate its importance, particularly in a period of expansion, which calls for imagination and continuous initiative. There is a grave danger that the needs of expansion and the increasingly complex relations between institutions of higher education and government will impose upon the heads of universities a quite insupportable burden. There are certain duties of which the Vice-Chancellor cannot divest himself. He is at once a member of the governing body and the chairman of the main academic councils. He must therefore be at the centre of all discussions involving broad questions of internal policy or relations with the outside world. He must represent his institution in all formal or informal relations with the University Grants Committee; he must be present at meeting of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals; he must keep in touch with potential benefactors, and he must be aware, in general, of developments in the various branches of learning. No other enterprise would impose on its chairman the variety and burden of work that the modern university requires of its Vice-Chancellor.

677. The selection of a vice-chancellor or a principal is perhaps the most important single decision that the governing body of a university may-be called upon to make; and arrangements for doing so are not made easier by the fact that such a decision may arise only once in ten to twenty years."

The responsibilities of a Vice-Chancellor are no less heavy in this country than in the United Kingdom or anywhere else. In certain respects the burden of a Vice-Chancellor in Indian universities is even greater. Among other things, he is the chairman not only of the academic body which determines the courses of study but he is also the chairman of the executive body. He also presides at the meetings of the Court. One of the most important questions to be determined in the light of past experience is with regard to the mode of appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

Mode of Appointment of Vice-Chancellor

The committee considered the different practices prevalent in various countries for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor. The following are some of the ways in which a Vice-Chancellor is chosen in Indian universities:

(i) According to the pattern which is followed in Delhi University and which has been incorporated in the Acts governing several other universities, the appointment is made by the Visitor from a panel of three names prepared by a committee consisting of three persons, two of whom are nominated by the Executive Council from persons not connected with the university or any of its colleges, and the other is nominated by the Visitor who also appoints one of them as chairman of the committee. In the case of Delhi University, a Vice- Chancellor is appointed for a term of five years and the person thus appointed is not eligible for re- appointment.

(ii) In Bombay University, the Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor. He is appointed for three years and is eligible for re-appointment. He is honorary but is given a sumptuary allowance. He is assisted by a Rector who is a whole-time salaried officer of the university.

(iii) In Calcutta University, the Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Education Minister from among three names recommended by the Executive Council, of whom not more than one shall be a member of the Syndicate. His term is four years and he is eligible for re-appointment.

(iv) In Madras University, the Court elects a panel of three persons out of whom the Chancellor appoints one as Vice-Chancellor. The term of office is three years' and there is no bar against re-appointment.

(v) According to another procedure obtaining in some other universities the Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the Education Minister (or a Pro-Chancellor representing the Founder's family).

(vi) In some universities (e.g. Karnatak) the election of the Vice-Chancellor is by the Court from among three members recommended by a majority of the members of the Executive Council, provided the appointment is confirmed by the Chancellor (which, is generally done). His term is three years and he is eligible for re-appointment.

(vii) Another practice is that the Vice-Chancellor is directly elected by the Senate. The Andhra and Sri Venkateswara Universities had this system till 1957, and it still prevails in S.N.D.T. Women's University.

The Vice-Chancellor being the chief academic and executive officer of the university must enjoy the confidence of the Court as well as the Executive Council. It is important that for this key office, it should be known clearly who is responsible for making the choice. We feel that this responsibility should be squarely placed either on the university or on the Visitor/Government. The committee is not in favour of a procedure under which no one agency or individual can be held responsible for the choice. We, therefore, do not favour in its present form what is usually called the "Delhi pattern" for selecting a Vice-Chancellor. The committee, however, is unable to suggest any one pattern as the most suitable one for all the universities in India. Circumstances in different universities, their "age", stage of development, traditions, and measure of success in self-government vary. Among these different modes two seem worth adopting in some form: One is the nomination of the Vice-Chancellor by the Visitor/Government; the second is the election of the Vice- Chancellor by the Court among three persons recommended by a majority of the members of the Executive Council.

It was suggested that whatever mode was adopted, the choice should be restricted to a list of suitable persons wide enough to be called an All India list and that this list could be prepared and maintained by the University Grants Commission or any other body or individual who can be trusted to act objectively. The committee agreed that some such safeguard was necessary even though the suggestion made above might not be the Most suitable one.

The committee is of the view that in the case of a newly established university, the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor should be according to the first mode, that is by the Visitor/Government. This may also apply to universities which are in an early stage of growth. When an institution has reached a stage of stability and traditions have been built up, there can be no doubt that the best way of selecting a Vice-Chancellor would be to

place the responsibility on the university community itself. This will be according to the second mode indicated above, subject to (minor) variations in procedure according to varying circumstances. The points that the committee would like to, stress are firstly that the responsibility for making the selection of the Vice-Chancellor should be clearly defined, and secondly in deciding upon the mode of selection of the Vice-Chancellor account must be taken of the type and stage of growth of the university.

A necessary part of this arrangement would be that it should be possible to change the method of selection if circumstances make it necessary. The committee suggests that it should be provided in the Act that if the Visitor is satisfied that in the circumstances prevailing at any particular time it is necessary for the Visitor/Government to nominate the Vice-Chancellor when the office next falls vacant, it should be within the powers of the Visitor to do so; in view of its importance, this action may be taken in consultation with the University Grants Commission.

Whatever may be the mode of appointment of a Vice-Chancellor the main object should be to choose the best person available. Ordinarily a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished educationist or eminent scholar in any of the academic disciplines or professions and have a high standing in his field and adequate administrative experience.

The committee considered at great length the restrictions, if any, that should be provided by law with regard to the term for which the Vice-Chancellor should be appointed and with regard to the need for a retiring age. It is felt that subject to what was stated earlier the first appointment of a Vice-Chancellor should be for a term of five years. The same person should not normally be appointed for more than two such terms in the same university, subject to any age of retirement that may be fixed. This, however, is not intended to bar the appointment of a person who has served for one or two terms in any other university.

The committee felt that in view of the strenuous nature of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of a Vice-Chancellor, there should be some age limit for the appointment. The committee considered the suggestion that the age of superannuation for a Vice- Chancellor be fixed at 65 years. However, taking into account the existing conditions and realising how difficult it is to find persons suitable and willing to accept this onerous appointment, the committee recommends that ordinarily a Vice-Chancellor at the time of his appointment or reappointment, should be below the age of 63. There is an age limit to the Vice-Chancellor's post in most countries such as the U.K. and U.S.A. where the Vice-Chancellor (or President) is appointed on a permanent basis. We suggest that while it would be desirable to have some age limit for a Vice-Chancellor, it should still be possible for a university to make use of a retired Vice- Chancellor in some suitable capacity by offering him either an academic appointment or some other position (such as Chancellor, for example)

which would make it possible for the university to avail of 'his experience, insight and wisdom; but this should not involve executive responsibility. The association of such men with the university in some emeritus capacity and his presence on the campus, if it could be arranged, would be a valuable asset to the life and activities of the university.

The emoluments of the Vice-Chancellor may preferably be laid down in the Act/Statutes. The emoluments should be commensurate with his status and responsibilities; while there should be some relation between his emoluments and those of Senior Professors in the University, it is also important that the salary of a Vice-Chancellor should bear favourable comparison to the salary of persons in similar position in public life. In this connection the committee notes that the salary of a Member of the Union Public Service Commission is Rs. 3,000 and of the Chairman, Rs. 3,500 per month and that there is also a provision for pension when they complete, one term of six years. We recommend that a provision be made for a suitable pension to a Vice- Chancellor retiring after completing one full term.

Pro-Vice-Chancellor or Rector

The Vice-Chancellor is concerned, inevitably, with almost every part of the work of the university. This in itself is an exceedingly heavy responsibility, and it becomes still more so if the university is an affiliating one with a large number of colleges and departments and students. It sometimes happens that a Vice-Chancellor is unable to attend adequately to the more important work of policy making and development because of the need to attend to routine work and administration. It is therefore very important that the Vice- Chancellor, where necessary, is provided with a deputy, that is, a Rector or a Pro-Vice-Chancellor. Ability to delegate and yet to keep a general overall control is a difficult art. It is important that relief is given to the Vice-Chancellor; but the manner in which it is done sometimes creates difficulties and complications. It may happen that if the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, or Rector, or other officer intended to provide relief to the Vice-Chancellor is chosen in the same manner as the Vice-Chancellor, it may not be possible to ensure that there is between them the complete understanding that is essential if the Pro- ViceChancellor is a real help to the Vice-Chancellor. One of the simplest ways in which the Pro-Vice-Chancellor can be chosen is for the Executive Council to fix the salary and other conditions of service, and leave it entirely to the Vice-Chancellor to choose the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the duration of his own term or for a shorter period if he so desires. It will work most satisfactorily if the person so chosen is one of the professors with some flair for administration. The next Vice-Chancellor may reappoint the same person, but if he prefers somebody else, the last Pro-Vice-Chancellor can revert to his Department.

During the time that a Professor or other member of the university staff works as Pro-Vice-Chancellor an additional allowance may be given to him. The age of superannuation and other terms and conditions of service of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor should be the same as for the Professor of the university.

Deans

The title of Dean is given to the head of a Faculty. In an affiliating University the Dean of a Faculty may not have ordinarily much work from day to day, but this is different in unitary or federal university. In the latter case the Deans have to coordinate the work of the different departments included in the Faculty, e.g. preparation of class time-tables etc., in addition to this, it would be necessary for them to exercise certain administrative functions. It is a debatable question whether the Deans should be appointed by the Vice- Chancellor or the Executive Council; or elected by the teachers; or chosen by rotation from the Heads of Departments, according to seniority with the option of declining the honour if the acceptance of the office is likely to interfere with one's academic work. The balance of advantage in the present circumstances is, perhaps, in favour of the Deans being appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. The Deans could provide valuable assistance to the Vice-Chancellor in dealing with organizational problems and in matters of general discipline in the university. In an affiliating university they could also assist the ViceChancellor in exercising some general supervision of the work of the affiliated colleges. The Dean of course should be a full time teacher of the university.

VISITOR AND OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY