Khagendra Kumar

The participation of universities in drafting their own statutes has become increasingly marginalized. It is now common practice that the drafting of statutes is entrusted to a small committee of Vice-Chancellors (VCs). This process is inherently flawed for several reasons: different committees are often formed for various statutes (e.g., promotion vs. appointment), and these members rarely take the time to study the unique structure, functions, or existing statutes of individual universities. As a result, many new provisions either contradict the original intent of the law or violate established service conditions for teachers and staff.

Ideally, all statutes, ordinances, and regulations should be initiated within the individual university and discussed and approved by its statutory bodies—such as the Academic Council, Syndicate, and Senate—before being submitted to the Hon’ble Chancellor for final assent. Unfortunately, this process has been largely abandoned.

Universities are also partially to blame for failing to assert the autonomy explicitly supported by NEP 2020. In recent years, when the Chancellor's Secretariat has sent drafts prepared by VC committees to a university’s Vice-Chancellor for comments, the feedback is often provided without consulting the institution's own statutory bodies. Consequently, these bodies have been effectively silenced and are no longer used as forums for meaningful intellectual discussion. Faculty members have also become apathetic, often attending meetings merely to sign documents rather than engaging in the debate required to protect the institution.

At the very least, any draft prepared by a committee of VCs and sent to respective Vice-Chancellors for feedback must be placed before the appropriate statutory bodies for discussion. This would ensure the Chancellor is aware of each university's perspective before granting final approval.

Several examples illustrate the problems caused by this top-down, non-consultative approach:

Policy Inconsistencies: At Patna University (PU), teachers are employees of the university, not of individual colleges. They are posted to postgraduate departments or constituent colleges based on requirements, and all have equal opportunities to lead departments or supervise PhD scholars. However, the recent uniform promotion statute for teachers in Bihar applies promotion criteria in a way that deviates from UGC regulations. Under the existing Bihar statute, a teacher must have supervised a PhD student to be promoted, regardless of whether they work in a college or a university department. If a teacher is not allowed to supervise PhD students, they cannot be promoted to Professor. Because many college teachers in large universities do not have the opportunity to register PhD students, this uniform criterion is inappropriate and must be amended to align with UGC regulations.

The Nature of Higher Education: Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are not factories for information transfer; innovation and research are the spirit of any teaching-learning institution. Those in positions of power who instruct HEIs to follow NEP 2020 seem to have little understanding of the policy itself. Had they read the introductory pages, they would have learned not to interfere in the process of education.

Service Conditions: The new promotion statute has removed a vital clause allowing for the inclusion of "past service" for teachers who moved from another university to institutions like PU without a break. This clause exists in UGC regulations, and its absence in the state statute has caused significant, unnecessary hardship.

Appointment Issues: Recent statutes regarding the appointment of Assistant Professors also appear to violate UGC guidelines. For example, introducing a new written test based on the NET syllabus—even for candidates who have already qualified for NET—contradicts the screening process recommended by the UGC. Furthermore, the age limit for Assistant Professor appointments is a major concern. Many eligible aspirants who have qualified for NET, completed a PhD, and worked as guest faculty for years will soon exceed this limit and face unemployment. Additionally, students who have suffered from years of delayed academic sessions will be negatively impacted; the age limit should be reconsidered to be more realistic.

A classic example of this failure occurred when the 2009 UGC-PhD regulations were implemented in Bihar in 2012. Students who received their PhDs between 2009 and 2012 were unfairly victimized, and no university in Bihar stepped forward to defend the validity of the degrees they had conferred. A degree is either valid or invalid; it should not matter what outside agencies, such as the BPSC or the judiciary, conclude. If a university cannot defend the highest degree it has conferred upon its own students, it has effectively lost its academic standing and integrity.

To protect university autonomy and ensure genuine accountability, this system must be revived. Statutory bodies must be restored as the heart of university governance, and the practice of drafting policies in isolation must be replaced by an inclusive, consultative process.