Action to be taken by the Head of the Institution The Head of institution must, on receipt of the recommendation of the Anti-Ragging Squad or on receipt of any information concerning any reported incident of ragging, immediately determine if a case under the penal laws is made out or not. In case it is made out, the Head, either on his own or through a member of the Anti-Ragging Committee authorised by him in this behalf, proceed to file a First Information Report (FIR). The filing of FIR has to be done within twenty four hours of receipt of such information or recommendation. According to these regulations, offences for which an FIR may be filed under the penal laws are - abetment to ragging; criminal conspiracy to rag; unlawful assembly and rioting while ragging; public nuisance created during ragging; violation of decency and morals through ragging; injury to body, causing hurt or grievous hurt; wrongful restraint; wrongful confinement; use of criminal force; assault as well as sexual offences or unnatural offences; extortion; criminal trespass; offences against property; criminal intimidation; attempts to commit any or all of the above mentioned offences against the victim(s); threat to commit any or all of the above mentioned offences against the victim(s); physical or psychological humiliation; and all other offences following from the definition of “Ragging”. 218 Duties and Responsibilities of the Commission and the Councils According to these regulations, the Commission must establish, fund and operate, a toll-free Anti-Ragging Helpline, operational round the clock, which could be accessed by students in distress due to ragging related incidents. The Commission must also maintain a database to be created out of all the affidavits received by the institutions under these regulations and such database must also function as a record of ragging complaints received, and the status of the action taken thereon. The Commission shall make available the database to a non-governmental agency to be nominated by the Central Government, to build confidence in the public and also to provide information of non compliance with these Regulations to the Councils and to such bodies as may be authorised by the Commission or by the Central Government. These regulations also require the Commission to take certain regulatory steps. Accordingly, the Commission must make it mandatory for the institutions to incorporate in their prospectus, the directions of the Central Government or the State Level Monitoring Committee relating to prohibition and consequences of ragging. Non-compliance with these regulations and directions will be considered as lowering of academic standards by the institution. This will, therefore, make the institution liable for appropriate action under the Act and the relevant regulations. The Commission must also constitute an Inter-Council Committee, consisting of representatives of the various Councils, the non-governmental agency responsible for monitoring the database maintained by the Commission and such other bodies in higher education, to coordinate and monitor the anti-ragging measures in institutions across the country and to make 217 See id. cl. 6(4). 218 See id. cl. 7. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 43 of 64
recommendations from time to time; and must meet at least once in six months each year. Another step that the Commission must take is to institute an Anti-Ragging Cell within the Commission as an institutional mechanism to provide secretarial support for collection of information and monitoring, and to coordinate with the State Level Monitoring Cell and University level Committees for effective implementation of anti-ragging measures, and the Cell shall also coordinate with the non-governmental agency responsible for monitoring the database maintained by the Commission. In addition, the Commission must verify that the institutions strictly comply with the requirement of getting the affidavits from the students and their parents/guardians as envisaged under these regulations. Finally, the Commission may give priority to financial assistance proposals from those institutions, otherwise eligible to receive grants under Section 12B of the Act, which have not reported any ragging incident. 219 Administrative Action in the Event of Ragging The Anti-Ragging Committee constituted by the institution in terms of these regulations has the power to decide on one or more of the following punishments to those found guilty of ragging as per these regulations. 220 i) Suspension from attending classes and academic privileges; ii) Withholding/ withdrawing scholarship/ fellowship and other benefits; iii) Debarring from appearing in any test/ examination or other evaluation process; iv) Withholding results; v) Debarring from representing the institution in any regional, national or international meet or tournament or youth festival; vi) Suspension/ expulsion from the hostel; vii) Cancellation of admission; viii) Rustication from the institution for period ranging from one to four semesters; and ix) Expulsion from the institution and consequent debarring from admission to any other institution for a specified period. 219 See id. cl. 8. 220 See id. cl. 9. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 44 of 64
G. The University Grants Commission (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010 The University Grants Commission (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010 have been discussed in detail in Part 1 at page no. 3. H. The University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 The University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 221 (UGC Minimum Qualification of Teachers and other Academic Staff Regulations) were made by the Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 26(1)(e) and Section 26(1)(g) of the Act and in pursuance of certain communications and notifications received from the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Finance. These regulations suppressed all earlier regulations made on this matter in the years 1983, 1991 and 2000. The UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 have been issued for minimum qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of university and College teachers, librarians, directors of physical education and sports with the objectives of: i) Maintenance of standards in higher education, and ii) Revision of pay scales. The UGC Minimum Qualification of Teachers and other Academic Staff Regulations apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the university concerned under Section 2(f) of the Act and every institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the Act. The coverage of these regulations for different categories of teachers has been provided. 222 The important points given in these regulations are discussed as under: Recruitment and Qualifications 223 The UGC Minimum Qualification of Teachers and other Academic Staff Regulations provide detailed requirements and conditions for recruitments of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges. 221 See University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, Gazette of India, Pt. III – Section 4, No. F.3-1/2009 dated 28 June, 2010. 222 See id. Annexure, cl 1.0.0. 223 See id. Annexure, cl 3.0.0. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 45 of 64
The direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the universities and colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees as per these regulations to be incorporated under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned university. The composition of such committees should be as prescribed by the in these regulations. The minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principals, Assistant Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Deputy Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Librarians will be those as prescribed by the Commission in these regulations. Selection Committee and Guidelines on Selection 224 These regulations provide the detailed specifications of Selection Committees for selection of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Assistant Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Librarian, Assistant Director of Physical Education and Sports, Deputy Director of Physical Education and Sports and Director of Physical Education and Sports; and specified selection procedures for direct recruitment and Career Advancement Schemes for teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges. Selection Procedures 225 The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightage given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators as provided in these regulations. Selection of Pro-Vice Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of Universities 226 The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may be a whole time Professor of the University and shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of Vice-Chancellor. The Pro-Vice- Chancellor shall hold office for a period which is co-terminus with that of Vice-Chancellor. However, it shall be the prerogative of the Vice-Chancellor to recommend a new Pro-Vice- Chancellor to the Executive Council, during his tenure. These Regulations, for selection of Pro- Vice-Chancellor shall be adopted by the concerned university through amendment of the underlying Act/Statute. So far as the posts of Vice-Chancellors are concerned, only persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice- Chancellors. Such a person should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten 224 See id. Annexure, cl. 5.0.0. 225 See id. Annexure, cl. 6.0.0. 226 See id. Annexure, cl. 7.0.0 The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 46 of 64
years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organization. The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee through a public Notification or nomination or a talent search process or in combination. The members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. The conditions of service of the Vice Chancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the Universities concerned in conformity with these Regulations. The term of office of the Vice Chancellor shall form part of the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her eligible for all service related benefits. The universities/State Governments must modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes of the universities concerned within 6 months of adoption of these Regulations. Study Leave, Duty Leave and Sabbatical Leave 227 These regulations provide for Duty Leave, Study Leave, Sabbatical Leave and Other Kinds of Leave for permanent teachers as well as new appointees. Research Promotion Grant 228 The Commission or the respective government (Central or State) may provide a start-up grant at the level of Rs. 3.0 lakhs in Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages and Rs. 6.0 lakhs in Sciences and Technology to teachers and other non-vocational academic staff to take up research immediately after their appointments. Counting of Past Services for Direct Recruitment and Promotion 229 Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a university, college, national laboratories or other scientific/professional organizations should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion. Period of Probation and Confirmation 230 The minimum period of probation shall be one year extendable by a maximum period of one more year in case of unsatisfactory performance. The confirmation at the end of one year shall be automatic, unless extended for another year by a specific order, before expiry of the first year. it is obligatory on the part of the university/the concerned institution to issue an order of confirmation to the incumbents within 45 days of completion of probationary period after due 227 See id. Annexure, cl. 8.0. 228 See id. Annexure, cl. 9. 229 See id. Annexure, cl. 10.0. 230 See id. Annexure, cl. 11.0. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 47 of 64
process of verification of satisfactory performance. Probation and confirmation rules are applicable only at the initial stage of recruitment, issued from time to time, by Central Government. All other Central Government rules on probation and confirmation shall be applicable mutatis mutandis. Creation and Filling up of Teaching Posts 231 Teaching posts in universities, as far as feasible, may be created in a pyramidal order, that is, for instance, for one post of Professor, there shall be two posts of Associate Professors and four posts of Assistant Professors, per department. Appointment on Contract Basis 232 The teachers should be appointed on contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms. In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number of faculty positions in a College/University. Teaching Days 233 The Universities/Colleges must adopt at least 180 working days, i.e. there should be a minimum of 30 weeks of actual teaching in a 6-day week. Of the remaining period, 12 weeks may be devoted to admission and examination activities, and non-instructional days for co-curricular, sports, college day etc., 8 weeks for vacations and 2 weeks may be attributed to various public holidays. If the University adopts a 5 day week pattern, then the number of weeks should be increased correspondingly to ensure equivalent of 30 weeks of actual teaching with a 6 day week. Workload 234 The workload of the teachers in full employment should not be less than 40 hours a week for 30 working weeks (180 teaching days) in an academic year. It should be necessary for the teacher to be available for at least 5 hours daily in the University/College for which necessary space and infrastructure should be provided by the University/College. Service Agreement and Fixing of Seniority 235 At the time of recruitment in Universities and Colleges, a service agreement should be executed between the University/College and the teacher concerned and a copy of the same should be deposited with the Registrar/Principal. Such service agreement shall be duly stamped as per the rates applicable. 231 See id. Annexure, cl. 12.0. 232 See id. Annexure, cl. 13.0. 233 See id. Annexure, cl. 14.0. 234 See id. Annexure, cl. 15.0 235 See id. Annexure, cl. 16.0 The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 48 of 64
Code of Professional Ethics 236 The UGC Minimum Qualification of Teachers and other Academic Staff Regulations contain a detailed Code of Professional Ethics for the teachers covered therein. It provides guidelines on the desirable professional conduct of the teachers. The different aspects of professional ethics are given as - Teachers and their Responsibility, Teachers and the Students, Teachers and Colleagues, Teachers and Authorities, Teachers and Non-teaching Staff, Teachers and Guardians and Teacher and Society. I. The University Grants Commission (Grievance Redressal) Regulations, 2012 The University Grants Commission (Grievance Redressal) Regulations, 2012 237 provide a statutory framework for the grievance redressal mechanism in all universities and colleges. Mandatory publication of prospectus, its contents and pricing 238 239 The UGC Grievance Redressal Regulations require every Higher Educational Institution (HEI) to mandatorily publish a prospectus at any time 60 days before the commencement of the admission to any of its courses or programmes of study. This is for the purposes of informing prospective students and general public, in an exhaustive and transparent manner, about the following: i) Complete details on fees, deposits and other charges along with the refund policy; ii) Number of approved seats for each programme of study; iii) Conditions of eligibility, including age limit, if any, for the prospective students; iv) Minimum educational qualification, whether statutorily prescribed or otherwise; v) Process of admission and selection of eligible candidates, including details of the admission test and its charges, if any; vi) Complete details of the regular and visiting teaching faculty, including their educational qualifications and teaching experience; vii) Details of physical and academic infrastructure and other facilities including hostel accommodation, library, hospital; and industry wherein the practical training is to be imparted to the students; viii) Broad outlines of the syllabus specified by the appropriate statutory authority or by the institution, as the case may be; 236 See id. Annexure, cl. 17.0 237 See University Grants Commission (Grievance Redressal) Regulations, 2012, Gazette of India, Pt. III – Section 4, No.14-4/2012(CPP-II) dated March 23, 2013. 238 See id. cls. 3(1) – 3(2). 239 See id. cl. 2(h). The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 49 of 64
ix) all relevant instructions in regard to maintaining the discipline by students within or outside the campus of the institution, and, in particular such discipline relating to the prohibition of ragging; and x) Any such information as may be specified by the Commission. The HEI must also publish these details on its website and the attention of the prospective students and general public must be drawn to their publication on the website through advertisements in different newspapers and through other media. Moreover, the HEI must price the prospectus reasonably and must not make any profit out of the publication, distribution or sale of prospectus. Appointment, Tenure, Removal and Conditions of Services under Grievance Redressal Mechanism 240 The UGC Grievance Redressal Regulations provide for the position of an Ombudsman. Accordingly, each university must appoint an Ombudsman for redressal of grievances of students under these regulations. These regulations also provide for the eligibility, conditions of appointment, duration of appointment, manner of appointment, remuneration and procedure of removal of such Ombudsman. Grievance Redressal Committee 241 The UGC Grievance Redressal Regulations provide for constitution of a Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) in case of colleges. Accordingly, the Vice Chancellor of the affiliating university must constitute a GRC for every college or a group of colleges. These regulations also provide for their composition, term, reimbursement, procedures and functions. The decisions of the GRC can be appealed against by approaching the concerned Ombudsman. Powers and functions of Ombudsman 242 The UGC Grievance Redressal Regulations provide for certain powers and functions of the Ombudsman. Accordingly, the Ombudsman must exercise his power to hear grievance of any student against the university or institution affiliated to it or an institute, as the case may be, after the student has availed of remedies available in such institution for redressal of grievance; and of any applicant for admission as student to such institution. The only exception to this is the grievance related to revaluation or remarking of answer sheets which can be heard by the Ombudsman only when specific irregularity materially affecting the outcome or specific instance of discrimination is indicated. 240 See id. cl. 4. 241 See id. cl. 5. 242 See id. cl. 6. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 50 of 64
Procedure in redressal of grievances by Ombudsman and Grievance Redressal Committee 243 The UGC Grievance Redressal Regulations provide for elaborate mechanism and procedures for redressal of grievances by the Ombudsman and the GRC. Accordingly, each institution must establish a registry for making applications for redressal of grievance. Applications or complaints may be filed by the aggrieved student or his/her parent or with a special permission from the Ombudsman or the GRC by any other person. After receiving an application in the registry, the Ombudsman or the GRC must fix a date of hearing and such date must be communicated to the aggrieved person. The Ombudsman or the GRC must be guided by the principles of natural justice while hearing the grievance and the whole process must be completed speedily within one month of receipt of the grievance. The concerned institution must cooperate with the Ombudsman or the GRC and failure to do so may be reported by the Ombudsman to the Commission. On the conclusion of proceedings, the Ombudsman or the GRC, must pass such order, with reasons for such order, as may be deemed fit to redress the grievance and provide such relief as may be desirable to the affected party at issue. Such an order must be provided to the aggrieved person as well as the institution and must be published on the website of the institution. The institution is under compulsion to comply with the order. Any case of non-compliance must be reported to the Commission. It may also be noted that in case of any false or frivolous complaint, the Ombudsman may order appropriate action against the complainant. Information regarding Ombudsman and Grievance Redressal Committee to be published in prospectus 244 Every HEI must provide detailed information regarding provisions of the GRC, the Ombudsman and the duties and rights of students in their prospectus prominently. Consequences of non-compliance 245 In case an institution willfully contravenes or repeatedly fails to comply with the orders of the Ombudsman or the GRC, the Commission has the power to take one or more of the following actions: i) Withdraw the declaration of fitness to receive grants under Section 12B of the Act; ii) Withhold any grant allocated to the Institution; iii) Declare the institution ineligible for consideration for any assistance under any of the general or special assistance programs of the Commission; iv) Inform the general public, including potential candidates for admission, through a notice displayed prominently in the newspapers or other suitable media and posted 243 See id. cl. 7. 244 See id. cl. 8. 245 See id. cl. 9. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 51 of 64
on the website of the Commission, declaring that the institution does not possess the minimum standards for redressal of grievances; v) Recommend to the affiliating university for withdrawal of affiliation, in case of a college; vi) Recommend to the Central Government for withdrawal of declaration as Institution deemed to be university, in case of an institution deemed to be university; vii) Recommend to the appropriate State Government for withdrawal of status as university in case of a university established or incorporated under a State Act; and viii) Such other action within its powers as the Commission may deem fit and impose such other penalties as may be provided in the Act for such duration of time for the institution to comply with the provisions of these regulations. However, the Commission must not take any action under this regulation without giving to the institution an opportunity of being heard and to explain its position. J. The University Grants Commission Mandatory Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 The University Grants Commission Mandatory Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2012 246 (UGC Mandatory Assessment Regulations) were made by the Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g). These regulations apply to all universities established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act; all institutions, other than technical institutions, declared to be deemed to be university under Section 3 of the Act; and all colleges, other than technical institutions, including autonomous colleges. These regulations have been made with retrospective effect. The details of these regulations are discussed as under: Objectives 247 These regulations provide a number of objectives for the process of assessment 248 and accreditation. 249 These objectives are discussed under the following broad heads: 246 See University Grants Commission Mandatory Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2012, Gazette of India, Pt. III – Section 4, No. 14-42/2011(CPP-II), dated January 19, 2013. 247 See id. cls. 3(a) – 3(k). 248 See id. cl. 2(c). 249 See id. cl. 2(a). The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 52 of 64
i) Quality of Higher Education and Higher Educational Institutions 250 (HEI): These regulations primarily aim to accord recognition to the quality and excellence of education imparted by HEIs and thereby to advance academic quality; to facilitate HEIs to augment quality, by benchmarking uniform reference points pertaining to academic standards; to facilitate HEIs to secure additional funding and other incentives, if found eligible, from appropriate regulatory and or funding agencies; to facilitate HEIs to acquire international recognition, cross- border and trans-national collaborations; to facilitate effective teaching-learning and access to quality teaching-learning material in all the languages permitted by the HEIs as medium of instruction or examination; and to facilitate HEIs achieve effective governance mechanisms in their management and administration. ii) Students, Teachers and other Stakeholders: These regulations also aim at enabling students and other stakeholder to make informed choices with regard to the HEIs; enabling student, teachers and other stakeholders to provide inputs concerning the quality of education imparted by the HEIs; to facilitate students achieve learning outcomes appropriate to their course and relevant to their context, as shall be declared by HEIs; to facilitate students entitlements, as prescribed by the Commission or declared by the HEIs, as the case may be, to be met by the HEIs; to facilitate teachers achieve and maintain teaching and research standards as shall be declared by the HEIs. Mandatory Assessment and Accreditation 251 The UGC Mandatory Assessment Regulations make it mandatory for each HEI to get accredited by the Assessment and Accreditation Agency 252 after reaching the stage of passing out of two batches or six years, whichever is earlier, in accordance with the norms and methodology prescribed by such agency or the Commission, as the case may be. Thus, every HEI that has reached the stage of either completing six years of existence or passing out of two batches must apply to the Accreditation Agency for accreditation within six months from the date of coming into force of these regulations. On the other hand, every HEI that has not reached the stage of either completing six years of existence or passing out of two batches must apply to the Accreditation Agency for accreditation within six months from date of reaching such stage. Moreover, every HEI that intends to commence academic operations, after coming into force of these regulations, must apply for assessment and accreditation to the Assessment and Accreditation Agency. 250 See id. cl. 2(g). 251 See id. cl. 4. 252 See id. cl. 2(d). The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 53 of 64
Period of Validity and Reaccreditation 253 The UGC Mandatory Assessment Regulations provide that the accreditation so granted is valid for a period of five years. It is also mandatory for each accredited HEI to apply for Reaccreditation six months before the expiry of the five year period in accordance with the norms and procedures prescribed by the relevant Accreditation Agency. Duties and Obligations of Assessment and Accreditation Agency 254 The Assessment and Accreditating Agency must ensure complete transparency in its operations and strictly abide by a code of ethics. It must also provide an opportunity to all stakeholders in the HEI including students, teachers and non-teaching employees, to submit their views on matters of academic quality; and to file suggestions or objections, if any, on the Self Study Report (SSR) prepared by the HEI for submission to the Accreditation Agency. These views, suggestions or objections must be noted by the Assessment and Accreditation Agency while finalizing the accreditation. The Assessment and Accreditation Agency is also bound to publish on its website the final accreditation together with all documents based on which-such accreditation was given to the HEI. The entire process of Accreditation must be completed or decision must be taken on the same within six months of receipt of application form the HEI. take a decision on application, submitted within 90 days of grant of accreditation, for withdrawal/ modification of accreditation, against which any person or body is aggrieved, within 90 days of receiving the application: Assessment and Accreditation as Pre-requisites 255 The UGC Mandatory Assessment Regulations have the effect of making assessment and accreditation pre-requisites for receiving financial assistance from the Commission. Thus, an HEI or any of its Faculties, Schools, Departments, Centres or any other units therein, by whatever name called, is eligible for applying or receiving financial assistance from the Commission under any of its schemes only after undergoing the process of assessment and accreditation within stipulated period as per these regulations. Moreover, for applying or being considered for declaration as an institution deemed to be university under section 3 of the Act, the institution, other than those under de novo category, has to undergo the process of assessment and accreditation as per these regulations. Finally, a university or institution will be notified or recognized under Section 12B or Section 2 (f) of the Act, as the case may be, only when it is duly accredited as per these regulations, after their enforcement. 253 See id. cl. 5. 254 See id. cl. 6. 255 See id. cl. 7. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 54 of 64
Incentives and Penalties 256 The Regulations provide for incentives. Accordingly, the Commission must allocate any higher level of funding, as it may deem fit, to such HEIs as are accredited in the highest grade. On the other hand, these regulations provide for penalties as well. Where an HEI fails to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, the Commission has the power to impose any or some or all of the specified penalties on such Higher Educational Institution. These penalty(ies) are in addition to any other action that may be taken against the HEI by the appropriate Assessment and Accreditation Agency. However, the Commission must provide reasonable opportunity to such HEI to be heard before imposing such penalty(ies). The specified penalties are as under: i) Ineligibility for Grants: The HEI may be declared ineligible for grants by the Commission by repealing the notification in respect of such HEI from the list of HEIs recognized under Section 12B of the Act. ii) Revocation of the Status as Deemed University: In case of deemed universities, the Commission may recommend to the Central Government for revoking the notification declaring such HEI as deemed to be university. iii) Action under the UGC Private University Regulations: Wherever applicable, the Commission may proceed to take action against the HEI under the University Grants Commission (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. iv) Withholding of all Grants: The Commission may withhold all grants, where applicable, allocated to such HEI. v) Ineligible for other Assistance: The Commission may declare that the HEI is ineligible for any assistance under any of the general or special assistance programmes of the Commission. vi) Public Declaration on Non-accredited Status: The Commission may declare that the HEI is not an accredited institution, and caution potential candidates against seeking admission to such HEI through various forms of media including the website of the Commission. 256 See id. cls. 8 – 9. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 55 of 64
Dispute Redressal Mechanism 257 According to these regulations, any dispute arising out of the implementation of these regulations will be discussed and resolved by the Commission (or University as the case may be) whose decision shall be final and binding. Also, the Commission has the power to amend these regulations from time to time and same will be binding mutatis mutandis on the HEIs. K. The University Grants Commission (Promotion and Maintenance of Standards of Academic Collaboration between Indian and Foreign Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 The University Grants Commission (Promotion and Maintenance of Standards of Academic Collaboration between Indian and Foreign Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 258 (UGC Foreign Academic Collaboration Regulations) were made by the Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g). These regulations are applicable to those Foreign Educational Institutions (FEI) 259 and Indian Educational Institutions (IEI) 260 which are either into collaboration 261 or intend to collaborate with each other to offer programme(s) of study leading to award of degrees and postgraduate diplomas. The UGC Foreign Academic Collaboration Regulations is a subordinate legislation which is very wide in its applicability and seeks to regulate every kind of relationship, direct or indirect, between FEIs and IEIs. The only notable exception is that of Technical Institutions (TI) 262 which have been kept outside the ambit of these regulations. These regulations are designed to regulate foreign academic collaborations in both ways. In other words, they operate whether the initiative for academic collaborations originate from India or outside of it. Moreover, these regulations have been given retrospective effect and all such 257 See id. cl. 10. 258 See University Grants Commission (Promotion and Maintenance of Standards of Academic Collaboration between Indian and Foreign Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, Gazette of India, Pt. III – Section 4, No. 1-1/2011(CPP-II), dated September 21, 2013. 259 See id. cl. 2(g). “Foreign Educational Institution” means – (i) an institution duly established or incorporated in its home country and has been offering educational programmes at the graduate and higher levels in its home country in the areas and disciplines concerned and (ii) which offers or proposes to offer programme(s) of study leading to the award of degree(s) or postgraduate diploma(s) through conventional mode, but excluding distance mode, in collaboration, partnership or in a twinning arrangement with any Indian Educational Institution. 260 See id. cl. 2(h). “Indian Educational Institution” means a university or college or institution, whether known as such or by any other name, (public or private), other than Technical Institution, recognized as such by the relevant Statutory Body for imparting education at the undergraduate, postgraduate and higher levels. 261 See id. cl. 2(d). “Collaboration” means an arrangement between an Indian Educational Institution and a Foreign Educational Institution, put into place through an instrument of written Agreement for the purpose of collaborative or partnership/twinning arrangements with the purpose of offering degree(s) and postgraduate diploma(s). 262 See id. cl. 2(m). “Technical Institution” means an institution as defined under clause (h) of Section 2 of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 but excluding Technical Universities and Universities offering Technical programmes. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 56 of 64
existing collaborative arrangements must comply within six months from the date of their enforcement. Eligibility Criteria and Conditions for Collaborations 263 The UGC Foreign Academic Collaboration Regulations provide for a number of criteria or conditions to be fulfilled in case an FEI is collaborating with an IEI. These are as under 264 : i) Accreditation: The FEI must have the highest grade of accreditation in its homeland in order to be allowed for Twinning Arrangement 265 with the IEI which must be accredited with a grade not less than B by the nationally recognized accrediting agencies or its equivalent in respect of institutional accreditation or a threshold level of accreditation in respect of programme accreditation, as the case may be. ii) Operative Arrangement: The only way of operative arrangement between the FEI and the IEI is through collaboration. iii) Conformity with Indian Statutory Standards: The FEI offering its programme(s) of study in India through partnership or collaboration or twinning must ensure that such programme(s) of study offered and imparted in India are in conformity with the standards laid down by the respective Statutory Regulatory Body concerned. iv) Compliance with other Statutory Conditions: The FEI must also abide by any other condition(s) prescribed by the Government of India and other Statutory Regulatory Body(ies) from time to time. Similarly, these regulations provide for a number of criteria or conditions to be fulfilled in case an IEI is collaborating with an FEI. These are as under 266 : i) Accreditation: The IEI can enter into an agreement for collaboration with an FEI only after getting accredited by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council with a grade not less than B or equivalent. However, the IEI maintained by the Central Government or the Commission or any State Government of any Union Territory Government has been exempted from accreditation for the purposes of these regulations. 263 See id. cl. 3. 264 See id. cl. 3(1). 265 See id. cl. 2(d). “Twinning Programme” means a programme of study whereby students enrolled with an Indian Educational Institution may complete their programme of study partly in India and partly in the main campus of Foreign Educational Institution in its home country in which it is primarily established or incorporated. 266 See id. cl. 3(2). The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 57 of 64
ii) Experience: The IEI must already be having an experience of five years in offering educational programme(s) in India at the level of degree and postgraduate diploma. However, the IEI maintained by the Central Government or the Commission or any State Government of any Union Territory Government has been exempted from the requirement of five years experience. iii) Academic Infrastructure: The academic infrastructure of the IEI, including its laboratory, workshop facilities and library, must meet the requirements of the relevant Statutory Body. iv) Approval of Affiliating University: If the collaborating IEI is affiliated to a university, then the prior approval of that university must be obtained before collaboration with an FEI for conducting programme(s) of study leading to degree(s) and postgraduate diploma(s). v) Grievances and Litigation: The IEI has the combined responsibility of addressing the grievances of the students and other legal matters relating to the collaboration. Apart from specific criteria for the FEI and the IEI separately, these regulations also provide for certain conditions which have to be satisfied jointly by the collaborating FEI an IEI. These are discussed as under: 267 i) Public Notice: Before the commencement of the programme(s) of study by the IEI, both the IEI and the FEI must publicize the academic requirements and other details of the programme(s) of study by displaying prominently on their respective websites. ii) Prohibited Areas of Study or Research: Any area of study and/or research which is against national security and territorial integrity of India is prohibited from being offered. iii) Compliance with other Statutory Conditions: Both the FEI and IEI must abide by any other condition(s) specified by the Government of India and Statutory Body(ies) from time to time. 267 See id. cl. 3(3). The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 58 of 64
iv) Compliance with Foreign Exchange Regulations: Wherever foreign exchange is involved, both the FEI and IEI must abide by and comply with the relevant Regulations, Norms, Notifications and Instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. Procedure for Collaboration 268 The UGC Foreign Academic Collaboration Regulations provide a fairly simple procedure for collaboration between the FEI and the IEI. This may be done by the FEI collaborating with the IEI by entering into a written Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or Agreement with the IEI concerned. However, a prior approval of the Commission must be obtained by the IEI on the proposed collaboration with the FEI. While approving the proposed collaboration, the Commission must also approve the draft MoU or the Agreement, as the case may be. After approval of the MoU or the Agreement, as the case may be, it must be signed by both the FEI and the IEI. Afterwards, a copy of such MoU or Agreement must be forwarded to the Commission. Finally, copy of such MoU or Agreement must also be uploaded on the websites of the FEI and the IEI. Procedure for Approval 269 The UGC Foreign Academic Collaboration Regulations provide for a detailed procedure for approval of collaboration between the FEI and the IEI. These are discussed as under: i) Proposal by the FEI: The concerned FEI must submit a draft MoU/Agreement along with an application in the specified format, giving details about the infrastructure facilities, facilities available for instruction, faculty, specified fee, courses, curricula, requisite funds for operations for a period of three years and the terms and conditions of the collaboration, if any. ii) Preliminary Processing: The Commission must acknowledge the receipt of the application and other materials as described above within a week. After this, the proposal will be processed internally and the Commission will communicate the deficiency found, if any, and requirement of any additional documents to the FEI which must be furnished within a period of one month. iii) Letter of Approval: Once the Commission is satisfied that the proposal is complete in all respects, it must take a decision to issue a letter of approval within six months. While taking the decision, the Commission must take into consideration various factors including quality of education, overall merit of the proposal, fees to be charged, and credibility of the FEI as well as the IEI. In case the 268 See id. cl. 4. 269 See id. cl. 5. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 59 of 64
proposal is not approved by the Commission, it must issue a letter of rejection citing the reasons thereof. iv) Period of Approval: The approval granted by the Commission as above will be valid for a period of five years or as specified otherwise. During this period of approval, the Commission has the power to conduct periodic reviews of the progress made. The Commission also has the power to inform the agencies concerned about the results of such reviews. In addition, the Commission has the power to withdraw or extend the approval or impose such other conditions for extension, as it may deem fit and proper. v) Revocation of Approval: The Commission has the power to revoke such approval in the event of any malpractices. However, before such revocation, the Commission must give an opportunity to show cause to the concerned educational institution. Miscellaneous Conditions 270 Apart from above, these regulations provide for certain other conditions as well. These are discussed as under: i) Franchise agreements, by whatever name called, between an FEI and an IEI are not allowed under these regulations. ii) An IEI is not permitted to use any arrangement with an FEI whereby the FEI grants, for a consideration, a license to the IEI to carry out educational activities in the name of the FEI. iii) The Commission must maintain an updated list of approved collaborating institutions on its website. iv) After the commencement of these regulations, every collaborative educational activity between an FEI and an IEI leading to award of degree(s) and postgraduate diploma(s) must be expressly approved or permitted by the Commission. Consequences of Violation 271 These regulations give powers to the Commission for ensuring proper functioning of the academic collaborations. These are explained as under: i) Termination of MoU/Agreement: The Commission, either on its own or on the basis of complaint received from any quarter, has the power to cause an inquiry including a physical inspection of any collaborative arrangement. 270 See id. cl. 6. 271 See id. cl. 7. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 60 of 64
If the Commission is satisfied after the inquiry that either one or both of the collaborative institutions are functioning in accordance with these regulations, then it has the power to issue directions for termination of the MoU/Agreement for collaboration. The Commission, however, has the duty to ensure that all the students who are already enrolled for such course or programme are permitted to continue till they obtain requisite qualification. The Commission, before exercising this power, must provide opportunity to the concerned educational institution to explain its position. ii) Action under Section 14 of the UGC Act: The Commission also has the power to withhold any proposed grant under Section 14 of the Act to any educational institution which has been found violating these regulations. iii) Withdrawal of Status of Deemed University: In case any Deemed to be University is found to be violating these regulations, the Commission, in addition to the above, has the additional power to recommend to the Central Government of withdrawal of the Deemed to be University status. iv) Residuary Powers: The Commission also has the power to take such further action against the IEI as it deems fit and proper. v) Blacklisting of the FEI: While the Commission does not have the power to take any direct action against the FEI, it can ‘blacklist’ the FEI found violating these regulations; and prohibit such FEI from entering into any collaborative arrangement with any IEI in future. Interpretations 272 The Commission has the power to decide on any question relating to the interpretation of these regulations and such decision by the Commission will be final and binding in the matter. i) The Commission has the power to issue clarifications to remove any doubt, difficulty or anomaly which may arise in course of implementation of these regulations. ii) Any dispute arising in relation to the collaborative arrangement between FEI and IEI will be governed by the Indian law. 272 See id. cl. 8. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 61 of 64
5. Supreme Court Judgments The Supreme Court (SC or Court) has had a number of opportunities to look at the Act in the context of various legal issues related to India’s higher education system. From all of these, a number of important points of law have emerged. These points are discussed in as under: a) Power to Legislate on Higher Education: In Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 273 it was held that only the Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate on fields under List I of the Seventh Schedule. The States simply do not have the power to make laws on these matters. Thus, if the States make law on any of the subjects of List I, it is void, inoperative and unenforceable. The Court further said that there must be single authority, in contrast with multiple ones like States, to coordinate action in higher education with appropriate standards. Such authority, the Court reasoned, was of paramount importance to national progress. b) Interpretation: The Supreme Court has given a wide interpretation to the term ‘coordination’ appearing in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. Accordingly, it does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It will include power to do all things, which are necessary to prevent what would make ’coordination’ either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. 274 c) The UGC Act and the Powers of the Commission: The Supreme Court has reiterated and reinforced the position of the Commission as the apex body in the field of higher education. Thus, any other university or statutory body, whether created by a Central Act or a State Act can not override the provisions of the Act and the powers of the Commission. In Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department the provisions of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 were held to be subservient to the UGC Act. 275 Similarly, in Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), 276 the Court held that the AICTE Act, 1987 does not override the UGC Act. Thus, the AICTE is not authorized to take any kind of penal action for non-compliance of provisions of the AICTE Act against any University or their constituent and affiliate colleges, including private aided and un-aided colleges. It can only send 273 (1987) 4 SCC 671. 274 See e.g. Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Rangnath Mudholkar & Ors. 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 112; State of T.N. & Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educations & Research Institute & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 104. 275 (2009) 4 SCC 590. 276 (2013) 8 SCC. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 62 of 64
the notice of such non-compliance to the Commission which alone is competent to take penal action. In University of Delhi v. Raj Singh, 277 it was observed that the Act gives very wide powers to the Commission, especially by virtue of clause (j) of Section 12. Thus, it was held that the regulations made by the Commission for fixing the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in universities 278 were legally enforceable on University of Delhi, a Central University. In University Grants Commission v. P. M. Bhargava, the Court upheld the decision of the Commission to allow study of ‘Jyotir Vigyan’ (Science of Astrology) in universities leading to award of specified degrees. The Court reasoned that the Commission was competent to take such a decision for which it had taken all the necessary steps. d) State Private Universities: In Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 279 the Court upheld the trumping feature of the UGC Act and the University Grants Commission (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. It was held that a State private university can only be established either by a separate Act or by one compendious Act where the State legislature specifically provides for establishment of the said university. In other word, a State private university can not be established merely by an executive order. e) Admissions of Students: In Bharti Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 280 it was held that the process of admissions of students to the institutions of higher education falls within the scope of maintenance of standards and therefore the Commission was competent to regulate it. f) Appointment of Teachers: In University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde, 281 it was held that the Commission has the requisite authority to fix the standards and qualifying criteria for appointment of teachers in the institutions of higher education. g) Directives to the Commission: The Supreme Court has for long taken a very serious exception of the issue of ragging. In Vishva Jagriti Mission v. Central Government, 282 it issued detailed guidelines for elimination of ragging in every form from every kind of institution of higher education. Again in The University of Kerala v. The Council of Principals in College, 283 the Court reiterated its resolve to put an end to 277 (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 516. 278 See University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and institution affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991. 279 (2005) 5 SCC 420. 280 (2004) 11 SCC 755. 281 (2013) 10 SCC 519. 282 AIR 2001 SC 2093. 283 AIR 2009 SC 2223. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 63 of 64
the scourge of ragging. In pursuance of this, the Commission made detailed regulations known as the University Grants Commission Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009. 284 6. Conclusion This note concludes by observing that the Commission has, within the ambit of the Act and the rules and the regulations made thereunder, acted as the planning as well as implementing agency for achieving the legislative objectives. In some ways, the Act has been used as an enabling legislation to give effect to many a policy decision of the Central Government for the higher education system. There is no doubt that the Commission enjoys widest authority and power within the boundaries of the Act. The Commission has also implemented the directives of the Supreme Court so far as the menace of ragging is concerned in the form of statutory regulations. While giving grants to institutions of higher education continue to occupy a large area of its work under the Act, the Commission has also regulated many related issues. Apart from this, the Commission does function as a think tank. It also serves, to a fairly large extent, an information warehouse for the higher education eco-system of the country. Public at large has access to a variety of regulatory information on different aspects of the higher education system. The scope of this note was very limited. It only provided the overview of the Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Thus, it is suggested that future research may explore the scope of reforms in the Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. 284 See note 210 supra. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: An Overview (Draft. Work-in-progress. Please do not quote.) © Author 2014 Page 64 of 64
Search
