Scholars take DU V-C’s tussle with HRD to President

The April 3 letter, signed by 101 signatories, including Padmashree and Bhatnagar awardees, raised concerns that the ongoing controversy could have a long-term impact on education reforms, “there is also inherent danger wherein no administration would dare undertake new initiatives and programmes aimed at reforming the education system”.

[related-[post]

The lead signatories includes former president of Indian National Science Academy Krishan Lal, former director general of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research S K Brahmachari and former DU V-C Deepak Pentel. They have also sought time to meet Pranab, who is also the Visitor of the university.

“If a university system is discouraged from introducing new ideas and models, then the nation is likely to suffer. We are thus greatly perturbed at the turn of events in the past few months whereby questions have been raised about what have been legitimately sanctioned and approved processes and programmes,” the letter said.

When contacted, Bhramachari said, “It is important to look at the positivity of every institution and DU has done very well in many innovation programmes, including FYUP at Cluster Innovation Complex, to which I am closely associated. So I signed the letter thinking that it is important we appreciate positive developments as well.”

The main charge against Singh is that FYUP was introduced in DU without clearance from the academic council, executive council, university court and the Visitor.

The HRD notice was served on Singh on March 17 and it sought a reply by March 31 on why he should not be dismissed. In his response, Singh contested the issues raised by the HRD and challenged the basis of the notice saying the President should exercise the powers as the Visitor of the university and not on advice of the executive.

As reported by The Indian Express, Singh in his response contested the ministry’s allegation saying, “right from December 2012 — when the initial FYUP ordinance amendment was approved by the executive council — until June 2014, never once had either the University Grants Commission or the MHRD raised any question regarding non-compliance with statutory procedures with regard to the amendment of the relevant ordinance by the university. Allegation that amendment to the ordinance was never submitted to the Visitor: This is clearly contrary to the record of communications.”