 RECOMMENDATIONS

Education is a problem of the greatest national importance. Nothing is more vital for an average individual than to know how his children are to be educated. "We cannot", as the Radhakrishnan Commission Report points out at page 44, "separate the individual from society. Social justice is the foundation of States and it demands that we create a society which is free from the evils which it is within human power to banish. If all men are entitled to an equal chance to be free from want, fear and ignorance, we cannot sit quiet and contented when millions of our fellow-men continue to live in poverty, disease, hunger and ignorance". But into the questions raised by educational re-construction we are not required to enter. We have a limited task, namely, to point out the extent to which the Union Government can assume greater responsibility for university and higher education. We have pointed out how university and higher education are closely connected with secondary and elementary education. Into the questions raised by a re-organisation of secondary and higher education we do not feel called upon to comment.

We shall now proceed to summarise our main recommendations to which we have been led by our study of the problem :-

1. We think that while Entry 66 of List I gives exclusive authority to the Union Government to coordinate and maintain standards it needs to be supplemented by an arrangement which would enable the Union Government to review the work and purposes achieved by uni- versity enactments and bring them, where necessary, into conformity with national requirements. We, therefore, recommend that university and higher education should be transferred from the State List to the Concurrent List, retaining intact Entry 66 in the Union List. Under this arrangement the State Governments will continue, as at present, to be responsible for the maintenance of universities. We have explained in the Chapter on the Gujarat University Case the exact import of Entry 66 according to the view taken by the Supreme Court.

2. We have pointed out that the University Grants Commission is the main agency through which the Central Government has exercised the obligations imposed upon it by Entry 66. We are satisfied that under existing conditions, the University Grants Commission should have 15 Members, of whom at least five should be full time Members. It goes without saying that they should be men of the highest standing in the educational world and we, therefore, recommend that they should be persons of the status of Vice-Chancellors. We have also been forced to come to the conclusion that it is undesirable that a person who is for the

time being holding full time appointment as a Vice-Chancellor should be appointed Member of the Commission. We, therefore, recommend that serving Vice-Chancellors should not be appointed as Members of the Commission. Our reason for making this suggestion is that it is undesirable to place a person in a position where he may have divided loyalties. The prestige of the University Grants Commission depends upon its being an independent and impartial body. The composition of the Commission should be such as to give no impression to the public that it is not completely independent.

3. We have emphasised the importance of university education and research. They are vital for our national development. No country can afford to neglect them. Our considered opinion is that the grant for allotment for university education and research placed at the disposal of the University Grants Commission is very meagre, as was emphasized by Dr. Kothari, Chairman of the University Grants Commission in his statement before us. Without committing ourselves to any figure, we are strongly of the opinion that in the Fourth Five Year Plan, a very much larger amount should be placed at the disposal of the Commission.

4. Our enquiry has disclosed that the system of matching grants has not worked satisfactorily. Both State Governments and universities find it difficult to provide matching funds. We, therefore, do not favour the system of matching grants and feet that depending on the merits of the case, the conditions of grant should be liberalized.

5. We are strongly of the view that the University Grants Commission should recognize, in consultation with the 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. This will enable institutions which do not at present come within the purview of University Grants Commission Act to come under it.

6. We are distressed to find that the pay scales in aided colleges are grossly inadequate. We' therefore, recommend that steps should be taken to see that more and more colleges adopt the pay scales prescribed by the Commission for affiliated colleges.

7. We have emphasised in our Report bow education must be regarded as one integrated whole. Professional education cannot be completely divorced from general education. We therefore, recommend that professional education including Medical (Basic), Agricultural, Engineering and Law should also come within the purview of the Uni- versity Grants Commission.

8. A real improvement in university education is not possible without a corresponding increase in the efficiency of our secondary education. We, therefore, recommend that vigorous steps should be taken to improve the quality of secondary education. We refrain from going into further details in this matter as it is not within our purview.

9. Poverty should be no bar to the acquisition of the highest knowledge. It should be possible for common people to start life without avoidable handicaps. Provided a candidate has merit he should be enabled to join our higher educational institutions. We, therefore, recommend that the number of scholarships and sizarships for university education and research should be considerably increased in institutions of higher education. We attach importance to the question of amount as it should be one which would cover all reasonable expenses of a student.

10. The importance of the education of women cannot be over- emphasized. Women hold the key to the future progress of the country. The number of scholarships and sizarships for higher education for women students should be considerably increased.

11. We are not in favour of single-faculty universities, for neither the literatures, nor philosophies or the sciences can be separated one from the other. Nevertheless, we recognise that there is a place in our educational system for institutions of national status specializing in various disciplines in our country. We, of course, assume that there will be no complete divorce in these institutions between the humanities and the sciences.

12. We have examined in our Chapter on the University Grants Commission the working of that body. We have been disturbed by the fact that there have been occasions when a State Government has not consulted the Commission before setting up a university. We, therefore, recommend that 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. We may point out that this change cannot be effected if education is not made a Concurrent subject. Indeed, this is one of our main reasons for recommending that education should be brought on the Concurrent List. We feel that 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. There are agencies at present for consultation between the universities and State Governments. The time has come now when a convention should be formally established for frequent consultations with State Governments and universities on all important policy issues. We are in favour of making the Inter-University Board a more effective body and it should more and more be regarded as the spokesman of university opinion.

14. We think that the universities should give attention to the question of minimum age of entry. We think that there should be a minimum age. What that age should be is a matter for the universities

to consider and decide. We are also of the opinion that the univer- sities should pursue a common policy in regard to admissions and that admission 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. It would, of course, be the concern of the universities to lay down the tests for merit.

15. One way in which the Centre can play a greater part in promoting higher education is to establish 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. Our universities have a duty to perform towards those who are not able to complete their education and who desire to have the benefit of higher education. We recommend establishment of morning, evening colleges and correspondence courses for the benefit of those who are unable to pursue regular courses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our thanks to the Attorney-General for the valuable opinion on legal questions involved in and proposition deducible from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the Gujarat University Case. We have been greatly helped by his observations. The statement of the case and his opinion is at Appendix IV.

2. We wish to record our deep sense of appreciation of the help and advice given to us by Shri R. M. Mehta, Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of Law on the legal and constitutional issues which we had to consider in our Report. To Shri Mehta, we are grateful for a careful analysis of the judgment of the Supreme Court and indeed we may add that the Chapter relating to it is entirely his word. Though he is one of us, we cannot but be too thankful to him for the interest, knowledge, ability and wisdom with which his work has been characterized by the Committee.

3. We would also like to express our sincere appreciation of the care, faithfulness and ability which has marked the work of our Secre- tary, Shri Triyogi Narain. He has spared no pains in helping us in every way in the performance of our work. For a short while he was away and during his absence the work of the Secretary was performed by Shri C. L. Dhingra. We owe it to say that he discharged his functions with knowledge and ability. We are indebted to him for the services rendered by him during the absence of Shri Triyogi Narain. We would like to record our appreciation of the work of the other members of the staff, especially Shri M. C. Jain who worked as Assistant to Secretary. They had been unsparing in their efforts to assist us. They have known no holidays,

for the Committee often worked on the days which are regarded as holidays. The work of our Stenographer, Shri D. D. Arora, has been a heavy one and we are bound to express our admiration for the efficiency and carefulness with which he has discharged his functions.

Sd. P. N. SAPRU Chairman

Sd. M. P. BHARGAVA Sd. SIDHESHWAR PRASAD Sd. P. K. VASUDEVAN NAIR Sd. AMAR NATH VIDYALANKAR Sd. P. MUTHIAH Sd. R. M. MEHTA Sd. C. K. BHATTACHARYYA

Sd. TRIYOGI NARAIN

Secretary