Education In India
Education in India
Er. Alok Kumar reports :
“Education in India : Past, Present and the Future. Ideas, Policies and Initiatives”
Special Educational Tribunals Mooted To Curb Malpractices By Educational Institutions
The Law Ministry is taking a close look at a suggestion to set up special tribunals with jurisdiction on various educational malpractices, including overcharging of fees and non-payment of students' dues by institutions. Ministry officials said they are in touch with the Human Resources Ministry, as it is concerned with policies related to educational institutions. The government's stand on the issue would largely depend "on the HRD ministry's views", said an official. The Law Minister, Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, is believed to be keen on using the tribunals for handling litigation related to specific kind of cases in already overburdened courts. The proposed tribunals on educational malpractices would save students and their parents the trouble of approaching
Over - burdened courts for justice.
Presumably "overcharging of fees" refers to the so called donations that are forcibly demanded and collected?
While the idea of regulating educational institutions is certainly welcome and long overdue, we need to look into the pros and cons of establishing a new tribunal just to look into malpractices by educational institutions. If the existing regulatory bodies for schools, colleges and other types of educational institutions are given more teeth and enforcing powers, they may well be able to handle this themselves, rather than creating a new tribunal.
If the Law Ministry is considering such a proposal, I wish they think about putting it out in the public domain and calling for comments and suggestions from the public. An important regulatory issue like this needs to be debated.
Educationists want privatisation to be restricted "to the minimum desirable level."
The State has, over the past 58 years, been unable to create enough opportunities to provide higher education for all through state funding alone and has pretty much abdicated its responsibility to the private sector. How many new state funded higher education institutions have been set up in the last ten years when compared to the number of new institutions set up in the private sector in the same period? Why should privatisation be restricted to a minimum desirable level, when the State is unable to meet the demand?
The educationists seem to be so steeped in dogma about the role of the state and the role of the private sector that they are losing sight of the ends (providing education for all) and getting caught up with the means (keeping the private sector out and letting only the State do everything at its own glacial pace, even if it means the objective is becoming unattainable). We left this mindset behind when the economy was liberalised in 1991, but it continues to haunt us in the education sector. Rapid growth of Industry and Services since 1991 is testimony to the success of economic liberalisation. Educational liberalisation can result in rapid growth of educational opportunities, likewise.
There's also the other issue of what is the "minimum desirable level" of private participation? Who is to define this? There can be no easy consensus on such an issue.
they have called for a tax on the industry to raise resources for higher education.
While in general, raising taxes to fund education is the way to go, we need to do the sums. What will be the extent of fresh taxation, how much will that raise and what will be impact of the taxes on the economy? Will the money raised through fresh taxes be sufficient to increase the supply of education to meet the huge, pent up demand? It's one thing to speak in general terms about taxes, but specific proposals doing the sums need to be put forward and debated.
the majority view at a recent meeting on the issue favoured a law banning such commercialisation. "All commercialisation of education, which should be unambiguously defined, should be banned by a suitable act of Parliament." This was one of the recommendations of the meeting of 64 eminent educationists here earlier this week.
What is commercialisation? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines - Commercialisation as "manage or exploit in a way designed to make a profit"- Profit as "a financial gain, especially the difference between an initial outlay and the subsequent amount earned", and- Profiteering as "making an excessive or unfair profit"
These words are going to be widely used in debating the dogma and need to be understood well by all.
An educational institution spends money on infrastructure and salaries to provide an education to students and expects to get paid by students in the form of fees for the service provided. If the fees cover all of the institution's expenditure, that would be ideal. More often than not, the fees cover only part of the expenditure and the institution has to balance the shortfall from other sources in the form of grants from the State or other types of income. If the State had no shortage of funds, it could bridge the shortfall in all institutions through grants and subsidies and there would be no problem at all in keeping fees very low and yet providing education for all. But with the State not having enough funds to meet the shortfall in existing institutions, where is it going to find the necessary funds to set up new institutions?
We're only talking about higher education here - the State has a far bigger challenge to find the funds to address the far more important task of providing free school education for all children.
If the ultimate objective is to provide educational opportunities for all, something no one can or will disagree with, there is no alternative to relying on the private sector to invest in expanding the supply of educational opportunities.
However, they are not closed to the idea of private participation. "Private investors in education may be encouraged. However, it must be made clear that this cannot be for profit-making purposes, in however disguised a form. Further, the entry of the private sector cannot be seen as a solution to all the various problems of quantity and quality," the educationists noted in their recommendations submitted to the Government.
How can the the private sector be encouraged to participate in increasing the supply of education on the one hand, while the other hand is forcing them to operate at a loss? I'm sure the eminent educationists all understand economics and incentives, but their dogma is so strong that they believe the private sector will do their bidding. If a private sector educational institution cannot at the least recover its costs, it will have to close down. The private sector won't even be interested in getting involved in the first place. At the least, private institutions must be allowed to be "commercial" i.e. they must be allowed to break-even or make a small fair profit, which would be the difference between the money spent and the money earned. If they are allowed to do so transparently, there would be no need to disguise their profit. Like prohibition, by outlawing for-profit education, the State has not been able to arrest it - it has only driven it underground. In fact, not just commercialisation (fair profit), even profiteering is rampant today - only not overtly.
But if private institutions begin profiteering and give short shrift to quality that should certainly be stopped. That is where the State needs to play a crucial role, something it has been remiss in not doing so far.
Good regulation is the solution to doing away with profiteering and poor quality. The State must set up an independent, autonomous regulator to regulate all private and public higher education institutions to ensure quality and transparency and prevent profiteering. The State did so in the telecom sector by setting up the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to ensure basic quality of services as well as keep the prices of telecom services provided by both public and private operators at reasonable levels. It needs to do the same in the education sector and regulate quality, not growth of supply.
The group of eminent educationists should be urged to take note of the excellent job quietly being done by the Directorate General of Shipping, the regulator of both publicly and privately funded maritime education institutions in India. Not only has the DGS decided to make it mandatory for all maritime education institutions to get themselves rated by independent rating agencies (CRISIL, ICRA and CARE), but it has also introduced exit examinations for students graduating from the institutions. The exit examinations will be conducted not by DGS but "by professional bodies in an open, fair, transparent and independent manner," and "institutes not yielding good results at the common exit exams would be closed down," according to GS Sahni, Director General of Shipping. When DGS has shown the way, why can't we learn from them and do the same in all other areas of higher education in India?
One of their grouses against privatisation was its market-orientation. "Commodification of education may lead to excessive emphasis on skill, employment and corporate-oriented education" at the cost of basic sciences and the vast pool of traditional knowledge, thereby creating an imbalance among various streams of learning.
Commodification is inevitable in education too like most other areas and we need to deal with it in the proper manner. It is true that the private sector would tend to first focus on areas where there is high demand, areas with emphasis on skills, employment (engineering, medicine etc.) and corporate-oriented education (like Management, Law, Finance etc.). Rather than citing that as an excuse to keep the corporate sector involvement to the minimum, the State should actually encourage the corporate sector, albeit with proper regulation, to address the demand in these areas to the maximum and look to complement the corporate sector by channeling all its funds towards basis sciences and "knowledge-oriented" courses. We also need to remember that there's no reason to believe that the private sector will never be interested in the sciences, social sciences and other knowledge oriented areas. The Indian Institute of Science (1911), Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (1945) and Tata Institute of Social Sciences (1936) were originally mooted and set up by the Tatas. Apart from taking over these institutions, how many more such high quality institutions have the State set up? The State's efforts have largely resulted in the proliferation of numerous arts and science degree colleges (that only dole out paper degrees mostly), with little emphasis on quality or knowledge.
Given the inevitability of private initiative in the Indian context, they said Article 19(6) of the Constitution should be invoked to ensure a holistic development of higher education, and prevent commodification and profiteering. Article 19(6) allows the State to put "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right to establish and run educational institutions conferred under Article 19(g) - the freedom to practise any profession, carry on any occupation, trade or business.
The eminent educationists grudgingly accept that private initiative is inevitable, but in the same breath are fighting to keep the private sector role to the "minimum desirable level" and clamoring to prevent the private sector from making a small fair profit. They seem to be unable to come to terms with the fact that the State by itself, has not been able to, and cannot, provide educational opportunities for all and if the private sector is not invited to participate, the ultimate objective of providing education for all is in jeopardy.
Why are they so threatened by the private sector to the extant that they want to invoke Article 19(6) of the Constitution to put "reasonable restrictions" on the right to establish and run educational institutions? Why can't they let enlightened regulation by an independent, autonomous body hold both the private and public sectors to transparency and high standards, without the need to resort to legislation? , Why can't they encourage both the private sector and State-funded institutions like the IITs, IISc., TIFR, JNU, the various Central Universities and others to address the needs of basic sciences, the humanities and the arts?
It is matter of serious concern to find these eminent educationists clamouring for legislation to turn their dogma into the law of the land. We need to challenge their dogma and speak out against it, else, there's little hope for us to provide educational opportunities for all, to ensure continuing growth.
Section 25 companies to be allowed to invest in higher education in India
According to a Business Standard report,
Private and foreign corporate investment may soon get to flow into Indian higher education with the government considering a move to reform policy that hinders such financing.
Currently, it is not possible for non-profit companies under Article 25 of the Companies Registration Act — like industry associations — to set up an institution and get university status and recognition from the University Grants Commission.
Educational institutions in India can be set up only by trusts, societies and charitable companies, but the profits cannot be taken out of the institution and have to be reinvested. Not only does this restriction hamper expansion, it also encourages promoters to resort to creative accounting to take out profits from the institutions.
Now, under encouragement from an influential political ally from Maharashtra, the United Progressive Alliance government is expected to clarify this clause, sources told Business Standard.
But this report doesn't indicate that for-profit higher education will be allowed - it only seems to indicate that in addition to non-profit trusts or societies, non-profit Section 25 companies will also be allowed to set up higher education institutions, which is not as big a step as what is being considered in the primary education space. A recent report had suggested that for-profit investment in primary education is under consideration.
So, what is a Section 25 company? The Indian Companies Act (1956), provides a definition of a section 25 company.
Section 25 POWERS TO DISPENSE WITH "LIMITED" IN NAME OF CHARITABLE OR OTHER COMPANY.
(1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government that an association (a) is about to be formed as a limited company for promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other useful object, and (b) intends to apply its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects, and to prohibit the payment of any dividend to its members, the Central Government may, by license direct, that the association may be registered as a company with limited liability, without the addition to its name of the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited".
(2) The association may thereupon be registered accordingly; and on registration shall enjoy all the privileges, and (subject to the provisions of this section) be subject to all the obligations, of limited companies.
(3) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government - (a) that the objects of a company registered under this Act as a limited company are restricted to those specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), and (b) that by its constitution the company is required to apply its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects and is prohibited from paying any dividend to its members, the Central Government may, by license, authorise the company by a special resolution to change its name, including or consisting of the omission of the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited"; and section 23 shall apply to a change of name under this sub-section as it applies to a change of name under section 21.
(4) A firm may be a member of any association or company licensed under this section, but on the dissolution of the firm, its membership of the association or company shall cease.
(5) A licence may be granted by the Central Government under this section on such conditions and subject to such regulations as it thinks fit, and those conditions and regulations shall be binding on the body to which the licence is granted, and where the grant is under sub-section (1), shall, if the Central Government so directs, be inserted in the memorandum, or in the articles, or partly in the one and partly in the other.
(6) It shall not be necessary for a body to which a licence is so granted to use the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited" as any part of its name and, unless its articles otherwise provide, such body shall, if the Central Government by general or special order so directs and to the extent specified in the directions, be exempt from such of the provisions of this Act as may be specified therein.
(7) The license may at any time be revoked by the Central Government, and upon revocation,
Not that big a difference from the way non-profit trusts or societies operate in India.
The Business Standard report also goes on to suggest that with the shackles of the Left Parties removed after the recent confidence vote, there will now be movement on the pending Foreign Education Providers (Regulation) Bill to allow foreign universities to operate in India.
There is also renewed hope for a Bill allowing foreign universities and institutions into India to be tabled in Parliament, judging by Human Resources Development Minister Arjun Singh’s remarks at a conference of state education ministers two days ago.
The Left parties were the principal opponents of the Foreign Education Providers (Regulation) Bill, which was cleared by the Cabinet in 2007 but never introduced in the Lok Sabha although it was listed in the agenda papers.
“We have tried to accommodate some of the concerns. We will try to introduce the Bill in the Lok Sabha session beginning August,” Singh said. The Bill seeks to regulate foreign institutions setting up campuses in India. A contentious issue is whether caste-based reservations would apply to these institutions.
Both Oxford and Stanford Universities have evinced interest in setting up campuses in India but have been hesitant about moving forward until they are clear about the degree of regulation, funding and other issues.
Experts say the moves would provide clarity on funding of higher education institutions by overseas entities. "This will probably provide funding clarity for foreign institutions like charitable organisations or NRIs wanting to set up facilities in India.
AICTE asked to clarify pay scale order
NEW DELHI, APRIL 23 .
The All-India Medical and Engineering Colleges Association have urged the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to clarify its stand on the implementation of pay scales in unaided institutions in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the TMA Pai case.
In a memorandum to the AICTE, the Association president, T. D. Naidu, said that hitherto all the colleges which were members of the Association were recruiting teaching staff and fixing their pay according to their qualification and ability. While so, the AICTE had directed all the member- colleges to pay the scales fixed by it to the teachers, librarians and physical education personnel.
Fixing such pay scales amounted to interference in the autonomy of the institutions and compelling them to pay the pay scales fixed by the AICTE. It was only the management that could assess the ability and expertise of the teachers and remuneration was paid on the basis of the practical assessment made by it. If the uniform pay scales fixed by the AICTE was paid then there could not be any assessment of the ability, sincerity, capacity, knowledge and teaching expertise of the teachers, and the management would be compelled to pay huge salaries even to non-working, non-cooperative and incapable teachers.
The Association said many of its member-colleges were being run by educational and charitable societies without any profit motive and in the absence of any aid from the Government, they would find it difficult to implement the new pay scales and they would be forced to close down their colleges.
The Association said that bureaucratic or governmental interference in the administration of private unaided institution would undermine their autonomy and would be against the judgment in the TMA Pai case, which had categorically stated that there should not be any interference in the appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students, and fees to be charged.
Its grievance was that the AICTE had unilaterally fixed the revised pay scales without giving it an opportunity; the Association said and requested the AICTE not to implement the revised scales for members of the Association.
The AICTE was also urged to instruct the affiliating universities and regional offices in this regard.
April 17, 2006
No-objection Certificate from state governments required for private, unaided schools seeking CBSE affiliation?
Does a private, unaided school seeking affiliation to CBSE require a no-objection certificate from the state government of the state in which the private unaided school is situated? The Delhi High Court has ruled that a no-objection certificate from the state government is a must and that decision is currently on appeal in the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds it, state governments will have a means to control the growth of private, unaided CBSE schools in their respective states, which would not be good at all. Things like this could happen in any state.
Here's the background to the case currently before the Supreme Court. There was a Delhi High Court ruling on September 08, 2005, in a case involving a private, unaided school (run by Tushar Welfare Society), seeking affiliation to the CBSE, which had applied to the Uttar Pradesh State Government for a no-objection certificate, to which the state government never responded. The CBSE had declined affiliation to the school on the grounds that it had not submitted the no-objection certificate from the state government, which it claimed was a requirement according to the bye-laws of the CBSE. The school obviously couldn't submit the no-objection certificate because the state government was dragging its feet for some reason. The school filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court arguing that the CBSE's constitution stipulated that a no-objection certificate was required only for state-funded schools and the bye-laws could not extend that to private, unaided schools, and over-ride the CBSE's constitution. Justice Vikramajit Sen of the Delhi High Court agreed and ruled in favour of the private, unaided school and asked the CBSE to recognise the school even without the no-objection certificate, if it satisfied all other conditions.
Justice Vikramajit Sen also made a few other interesting observations in his ruling (of September 08, 2005), which are excerpted below (emphasis is mine). These observations were criticised by two other judges of the Delhi High Court when this matter went on appeal (see below).
7. The Constitution of the CBSE requires the concurrence of the State Government concerned if in those cases where an Institution receiving 'regular maintenance or grant-in-aid from a State' applies for affiliation to the CBSE. There is sufficient reason for this stipulation since the State which is disbursing grant-in-aid to an Institution must retain the power to decide inter alia whether such Institutions should prepare the students for appearing for examinations conducted by the State itself or jointly by the State Education Boards as well as Central Boards such as the CBSE. Equally, Institutions which do not take aid from the State must have the freedom to choose whether they will prepare its students to appear in a Central or State Board examinations. If Central Boards are increasingly preferred over State Board, one of the consequences would be that High Courts throughout the country would not be burdened with several Writ Petitions dealing with the grant of equivalence of educational qualifications. It is widely experienced that one State does not automatically grant recognition to educational qualifications obtained from another State and educational standard vary drastically. The most effective solution is to be found in students appearing in one of the Central Board examinations such as conducted by the CBSE. The difficulties and problems that are endemic in varying and deferring standards of State Education Boards would automatically be obviated.
8. In this analysis, therefore, the CBSE is adopting a retro gate practice and stand in insisting that State clearances should be taken even by School which are private and unaided. In the present times, control and interference of the State is consciously being minimised. It would be a progressive step if educational institutions maintain themselves and regulate their affairs without drawing upon the State funds for which there invariably are many other suppliants. Where the parents of students are unable to afford the fees of private institutions, State schools should be available, as they presently are. No further regulation of education is called for. It is this ethos which has been expressed in the Constitution of the CBSE itself. All institutions which fall in the category of being private and unaided need not therefore obtain the concurrence and prior approval of a State Government for applying for affiliation to the CBSE. This is also what the Constitution of the CBSE itself envisages. The Bye-laws of the CBSE which require the concurrence and/or approval of the State Government are clearly ultra virus, and are, therefore, struck down. Private institution which obtains affiliation to the CBSE or any other Central Board need not have any connection with the State in which it is located, apart from it following and adhering to local laws including labour legislation.
The CBSE then appealed the decision in the Delhi High Court, which was heard by the Chief Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice Madan Lokur who delivered a judgment on December 09, 2005 which set aside the judgment of September 08, 2005 of Justice Vikaramajit Sen and dismissed the original writ petition filed by Tushar Welfare Society. Some excerpts from the December 09, judgment make interesting reading.
15. In Para 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the CBSE is discharging the function of conducting examinations, prescribing educational courses and generally maintaining standards of school education and advising the Government of India when called upon to do so on matters pertaining to school education. The CBSE frames its own rules and is governed by them and it has not been created under any statute. The CBSE is an autonomous and independent body, and no part of its expenses for running the organization is borne by the Government. It gets no aid, grant or subsidy from the Government and is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
This is an interesting point, which I had not been aware of. According to the CBSE web site, "CBSE is a self-financing body which meets the recurring and non-recurring expenditure without any grant–in–aid either from the Central Govt. or from any other source. All the financial requirements of the Board are met from the annual examination charges, affiliation fee, PMT examination etc."
But the CBSE web site also states that the "The Education Secretary, MHRD, Govt. of India is the Controlling Authority of the Board. If the Board does not, within a reasonable time, take action, to the satisfaction of the Controlling Authority, the Controlling Authority may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Board, issue such directions, consistent with this Resolution, as he may think fit, and the Board shall comply with such directions." So its autonomy is questionable.
17. Thus it is evident that although the CBSE was initially created by the Central Government by the Resolution dated 01.07.1929, subsequently the appellant was registered as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Hence after its registration on 02.01.1935 it ceased to be a limb of the Central Government and became an independent and distinct legal entity.
24. In Para 06 of the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has observed :- So far as regulations or bye-laws vis-à-vis a statute are concerned it is firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that a delegate would exceed the jurisdiction and the powers vested in it if it were to go beyond the provisions of the Statute which has created it.
Er. Alok Kumar reports :
“Education in India : Past, Present and the Future. Ideas, Policies and Initiatives”
Special Educational Tribunals Mooted To Curb Malpractices By Educational Institutions
The Law Ministry is taking a close look at a suggestion to set up special tribunals with jurisdiction on various educational malpractices, including overcharging of fees and non-payment of students' dues by institutions. Ministry officials said they are in touch with the Human Resources Ministry, as it is concerned with policies related to educational institutions. The government's stand on the issue would largely depend "on the HRD ministry's views", said an official. The Law Minister, Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, is believed to be keen on using the tribunals for handling litigation related to specific kind of cases in already overburdened courts. The proposed tribunals on educational malpractices would save students and their parents the trouble of approaching
Over - burdened courts for justice.
Presumably "overcharging of fees" refers to the so called donations that are forcibly demanded and collected?
While the idea of regulating educational institutions is certainly welcome and long overdue, we need to look into the pros and cons of establishing a new tribunal just to look into malpractices by educational institutions. If the existing regulatory bodies for schools, colleges and other types of educational institutions are given more teeth and enforcing powers, they may well be able to handle this themselves, rather than creating a new tribunal.
If the Law Ministry is considering such a proposal, I wish they think about putting it out in the public domain and calling for comments and suggestions from the public. An important regulatory issue like this needs to be debated.
Educationists want privatisation to be restricted "to the minimum desirable level."
The State has, over the past 58 years, been unable to create enough opportunities to provide higher education for all through state funding alone and has pretty much abdicated its responsibility to the private sector. How many new state funded higher education institutions have been set up in the last ten years when compared to the number of new institutions set up in the private sector in the same period? Why should privatisation be restricted to a minimum desirable level, when the State is unable to meet the demand?
The educationists seem to be so steeped in dogma about the role of the state and the role of the private sector that they are losing sight of the ends (providing education for all) and getting caught up with the means (keeping the private sector out and letting only the State do everything at its own glacial pace, even if it means the objective is becoming unattainable). We left this mindset behind when the economy was liberalised in 1991, but it continues to haunt us in the education sector. Rapid growth of Industry and Services since 1991 is testimony to the success of economic liberalisation. Educational liberalisation can result in rapid growth of educational opportunities, likewise.
There's also the other issue of what is the "minimum desirable level" of private participation? Who is to define this? There can be no easy consensus on such an issue.
they have called for a tax on the industry to raise resources for higher education.
While in general, raising taxes to fund education is the way to go, we need to do the sums. What will be the extent of fresh taxation, how much will that raise and what will be impact of the taxes on the economy? Will the money raised through fresh taxes be sufficient to increase the supply of education to meet the huge, pent up demand? It's one thing to speak in general terms about taxes, but specific proposals doing the sums need to be put forward and debated.
the majority view at a recent meeting on the issue favoured a law banning such commercialisation. "All commercialisation of education, which should be unambiguously defined, should be banned by a suitable act of Parliament." This was one of the recommendations of the meeting of 64 eminent educationists here earlier this week.
What is commercialisation? The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines - Commercialisation as "manage or exploit in a way designed to make a profit"- Profit as "a financial gain, especially the difference between an initial outlay and the subsequent amount earned", and- Profiteering as "making an excessive or unfair profit"
These words are going to be widely used in debating the dogma and need to be understood well by all.
An educational institution spends money on infrastructure and salaries to provide an education to students and expects to get paid by students in the form of fees for the service provided. If the fees cover all of the institution's expenditure, that would be ideal. More often than not, the fees cover only part of the expenditure and the institution has to balance the shortfall from other sources in the form of grants from the State or other types of income. If the State had no shortage of funds, it could bridge the shortfall in all institutions through grants and subsidies and there would be no problem at all in keeping fees very low and yet providing education for all. But with the State not having enough funds to meet the shortfall in existing institutions, where is it going to find the necessary funds to set up new institutions?
We're only talking about higher education here - the State has a far bigger challenge to find the funds to address the far more important task of providing free school education for all children.
If the ultimate objective is to provide educational opportunities for all, something no one can or will disagree with, there is no alternative to relying on the private sector to invest in expanding the supply of educational opportunities.
However, they are not closed to the idea of private participation. "Private investors in education may be encouraged. However, it must be made clear that this cannot be for profit-making purposes, in however disguised a form. Further, the entry of the private sector cannot be seen as a solution to all the various problems of quantity and quality," the educationists noted in their recommendations submitted to the Government.
How can the the private sector be encouraged to participate in increasing the supply of education on the one hand, while the other hand is forcing them to operate at a loss? I'm sure the eminent educationists all understand economics and incentives, but their dogma is so strong that they believe the private sector will do their bidding. If a private sector educational institution cannot at the least recover its costs, it will have to close down. The private sector won't even be interested in getting involved in the first place. At the least, private institutions must be allowed to be "commercial" i.e. they must be allowed to break-even or make a small fair profit, which would be the difference between the money spent and the money earned. If they are allowed to do so transparently, there would be no need to disguise their profit. Like prohibition, by outlawing for-profit education, the State has not been able to arrest it - it has only driven it underground. In fact, not just commercialisation (fair profit), even profiteering is rampant today - only not overtly.
But if private institutions begin profiteering and give short shrift to quality that should certainly be stopped. That is where the State needs to play a crucial role, something it has been remiss in not doing so far.
Good regulation is the solution to doing away with profiteering and poor quality. The State must set up an independent, autonomous regulator to regulate all private and public higher education institutions to ensure quality and transparency and prevent profiteering. The State did so in the telecom sector by setting up the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to ensure basic quality of services as well as keep the prices of telecom services provided by both public and private operators at reasonable levels. It needs to do the same in the education sector and regulate quality, not growth of supply.
The group of eminent educationists should be urged to take note of the excellent job quietly being done by the Directorate General of Shipping, the regulator of both publicly and privately funded maritime education institutions in India. Not only has the DGS decided to make it mandatory for all maritime education institutions to get themselves rated by independent rating agencies (CRISIL, ICRA and CARE), but it has also introduced exit examinations for students graduating from the institutions. The exit examinations will be conducted not by DGS but "by professional bodies in an open, fair, transparent and independent manner," and "institutes not yielding good results at the common exit exams would be closed down," according to GS Sahni, Director General of Shipping. When DGS has shown the way, why can't we learn from them and do the same in all other areas of higher education in India?
One of their grouses against privatisation was its market-orientation. "Commodification of education may lead to excessive emphasis on skill, employment and corporate-oriented education" at the cost of basic sciences and the vast pool of traditional knowledge, thereby creating an imbalance among various streams of learning.
Commodification is inevitable in education too like most other areas and we need to deal with it in the proper manner. It is true that the private sector would tend to first focus on areas where there is high demand, areas with emphasis on skills, employment (engineering, medicine etc.) and corporate-oriented education (like Management, Law, Finance etc.). Rather than citing that as an excuse to keep the corporate sector involvement to the minimum, the State should actually encourage the corporate sector, albeit with proper regulation, to address the demand in these areas to the maximum and look to complement the corporate sector by channeling all its funds towards basis sciences and "knowledge-oriented" courses. We also need to remember that there's no reason to believe that the private sector will never be interested in the sciences, social sciences and other knowledge oriented areas. The Indian Institute of Science (1911), Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (1945) and Tata Institute of Social Sciences (1936) were originally mooted and set up by the Tatas. Apart from taking over these institutions, how many more such high quality institutions have the State set up? The State's efforts have largely resulted in the proliferation of numerous arts and science degree colleges (that only dole out paper degrees mostly), with little emphasis on quality or knowledge.
Given the inevitability of private initiative in the Indian context, they said Article 19(6) of the Constitution should be invoked to ensure a holistic development of higher education, and prevent commodification and profiteering. Article 19(6) allows the State to put "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right to establish and run educational institutions conferred under Article 19(g) - the freedom to practise any profession, carry on any occupation, trade or business.
The eminent educationists grudgingly accept that private initiative is inevitable, but in the same breath are fighting to keep the private sector role to the "minimum desirable level" and clamoring to prevent the private sector from making a small fair profit. They seem to be unable to come to terms with the fact that the State by itself, has not been able to, and cannot, provide educational opportunities for all and if the private sector is not invited to participate, the ultimate objective of providing education for all is in jeopardy.
Why are they so threatened by the private sector to the extant that they want to invoke Article 19(6) of the Constitution to put "reasonable restrictions" on the right to establish and run educational institutions? Why can't they let enlightened regulation by an independent, autonomous body hold both the private and public sectors to transparency and high standards, without the need to resort to legislation? , Why can't they encourage both the private sector and State-funded institutions like the IITs, IISc., TIFR, JNU, the various Central Universities and others to address the needs of basic sciences, the humanities and the arts?
It is matter of serious concern to find these eminent educationists clamouring for legislation to turn their dogma into the law of the land. We need to challenge their dogma and speak out against it, else, there's little hope for us to provide educational opportunities for all, to ensure continuing growth.
Section 25 companies to be allowed to invest in higher education in India
According to a Business Standard report,
Private and foreign corporate investment may soon get to flow into Indian higher education with the government considering a move to reform policy that hinders such financing.
Currently, it is not possible for non-profit companies under Article 25 of the Companies Registration Act — like industry associations — to set up an institution and get university status and recognition from the University Grants Commission.
Educational institutions in India can be set up only by trusts, societies and charitable companies, but the profits cannot be taken out of the institution and have to be reinvested. Not only does this restriction hamper expansion, it also encourages promoters to resort to creative accounting to take out profits from the institutions.
Now, under encouragement from an influential political ally from Maharashtra, the United Progressive Alliance government is expected to clarify this clause, sources told Business Standard.
But this report doesn't indicate that for-profit higher education will be allowed - it only seems to indicate that in addition to non-profit trusts or societies, non-profit Section 25 companies will also be allowed to set up higher education institutions, which is not as big a step as what is being considered in the primary education space. A recent report had suggested that for-profit investment in primary education is under consideration.
So, what is a Section 25 company? The Indian Companies Act (1956), provides a definition of a section 25 company.
Section 25 POWERS TO DISPENSE WITH "LIMITED" IN NAME OF CHARITABLE OR OTHER COMPANY.
(1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government that an association (a) is about to be formed as a limited company for promoting commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other useful object, and (b) intends to apply its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects, and to prohibit the payment of any dividend to its members, the Central Government may, by license direct, that the association may be registered as a company with limited liability, without the addition to its name of the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited".
(2) The association may thereupon be registered accordingly; and on registration shall enjoy all the privileges, and (subject to the provisions of this section) be subject to all the obligations, of limited companies.
(3) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government - (a) that the objects of a company registered under this Act as a limited company are restricted to those specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), and (b) that by its constitution the company is required to apply its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects and is prohibited from paying any dividend to its members, the Central Government may, by license, authorise the company by a special resolution to change its name, including or consisting of the omission of the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited"; and section 23 shall apply to a change of name under this sub-section as it applies to a change of name under section 21.
(4) A firm may be a member of any association or company licensed under this section, but on the dissolution of the firm, its membership of the association or company shall cease.
(5) A licence may be granted by the Central Government under this section on such conditions and subject to such regulations as it thinks fit, and those conditions and regulations shall be binding on the body to which the licence is granted, and where the grant is under sub-section (1), shall, if the Central Government so directs, be inserted in the memorandum, or in the articles, or partly in the one and partly in the other.
(6) It shall not be necessary for a body to which a licence is so granted to use the word "Limited" or the words "Private Limited" as any part of its name and, unless its articles otherwise provide, such body shall, if the Central Government by general or special order so directs and to the extent specified in the directions, be exempt from such of the provisions of this Act as may be specified therein.
(7) The license may at any time be revoked by the Central Government, and upon revocation,
Not that big a difference from the way non-profit trusts or societies operate in India.
The Business Standard report also goes on to suggest that with the shackles of the Left Parties removed after the recent confidence vote, there will now be movement on the pending Foreign Education Providers (Regulation) Bill to allow foreign universities to operate in India.
There is also renewed hope for a Bill allowing foreign universities and institutions into India to be tabled in Parliament, judging by Human Resources Development Minister Arjun Singh’s remarks at a conference of state education ministers two days ago.
The Left parties were the principal opponents of the Foreign Education Providers (Regulation) Bill, which was cleared by the Cabinet in 2007 but never introduced in the Lok Sabha although it was listed in the agenda papers.
“We have tried to accommodate some of the concerns. We will try to introduce the Bill in the Lok Sabha session beginning August,” Singh said. The Bill seeks to regulate foreign institutions setting up campuses in India. A contentious issue is whether caste-based reservations would apply to these institutions.
Both Oxford and Stanford Universities have evinced interest in setting up campuses in India but have been hesitant about moving forward until they are clear about the degree of regulation, funding and other issues.
Experts say the moves would provide clarity on funding of higher education institutions by overseas entities. "This will probably provide funding clarity for foreign institutions like charitable organisations or NRIs wanting to set up facilities in India.
AICTE asked to clarify pay scale order
NEW DELHI, APRIL 23 .
The All-India Medical and Engineering Colleges Association have urged the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to clarify its stand on the implementation of pay scales in unaided institutions in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the TMA Pai case.
In a memorandum to the AICTE, the Association president, T. D. Naidu, said that hitherto all the colleges which were members of the Association were recruiting teaching staff and fixing their pay according to their qualification and ability. While so, the AICTE had directed all the member- colleges to pay the scales fixed by it to the teachers, librarians and physical education personnel.
Fixing such pay scales amounted to interference in the autonomy of the institutions and compelling them to pay the pay scales fixed by the AICTE. It was only the management that could assess the ability and expertise of the teachers and remuneration was paid on the basis of the practical assessment made by it. If the uniform pay scales fixed by the AICTE was paid then there could not be any assessment of the ability, sincerity, capacity, knowledge and teaching expertise of the teachers, and the management would be compelled to pay huge salaries even to non-working, non-cooperative and incapable teachers.
The Association said many of its member-colleges were being run by educational and charitable societies without any profit motive and in the absence of any aid from the Government, they would find it difficult to implement the new pay scales and they would be forced to close down their colleges.
The Association said that bureaucratic or governmental interference in the administration of private unaided institution would undermine their autonomy and would be against the judgment in the TMA Pai case, which had categorically stated that there should not be any interference in the appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students, and fees to be charged.
Its grievance was that the AICTE had unilaterally fixed the revised pay scales without giving it an opportunity; the Association said and requested the AICTE not to implement the revised scales for members of the Association.
The AICTE was also urged to instruct the affiliating universities and regional offices in this regard.
April 17, 2006
No-objection Certificate from state governments required for private, unaided schools seeking CBSE affiliation?
Does a private, unaided school seeking affiliation to CBSE require a no-objection certificate from the state government of the state in which the private unaided school is situated? The Delhi High Court has ruled that a no-objection certificate from the state government is a must and that decision is currently on appeal in the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds it, state governments will have a means to control the growth of private, unaided CBSE schools in their respective states, which would not be good at all. Things like this could happen in any state.
Here's the background to the case currently before the Supreme Court. There was a Delhi High Court ruling on September 08, 2005, in a case involving a private, unaided school (run by Tushar Welfare Society), seeking affiliation to the CBSE, which had applied to the Uttar Pradesh State Government for a no-objection certificate, to which the state government never responded. The CBSE had declined affiliation to the school on the grounds that it had not submitted the no-objection certificate from the state government, which it claimed was a requirement according to the bye-laws of the CBSE. The school obviously couldn't submit the no-objection certificate because the state government was dragging its feet for some reason. The school filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court arguing that the CBSE's constitution stipulated that a no-objection certificate was required only for state-funded schools and the bye-laws could not extend that to private, unaided schools, and over-ride the CBSE's constitution. Justice Vikramajit Sen of the Delhi High Court agreed and ruled in favour of the private, unaided school and asked the CBSE to recognise the school even without the no-objection certificate, if it satisfied all other conditions.
Justice Vikramajit Sen also made a few other interesting observations in his ruling (of September 08, 2005), which are excerpted below (emphasis is mine). These observations were criticised by two other judges of the Delhi High Court when this matter went on appeal (see below).
7. The Constitution of the CBSE requires the concurrence of the State Government concerned if in those cases where an Institution receiving 'regular maintenance or grant-in-aid from a State' applies for affiliation to the CBSE. There is sufficient reason for this stipulation since the State which is disbursing grant-in-aid to an Institution must retain the power to decide inter alia whether such Institutions should prepare the students for appearing for examinations conducted by the State itself or jointly by the State Education Boards as well as Central Boards such as the CBSE. Equally, Institutions which do not take aid from the State must have the freedom to choose whether they will prepare its students to appear in a Central or State Board examinations. If Central Boards are increasingly preferred over State Board, one of the consequences would be that High Courts throughout the country would not be burdened with several Writ Petitions dealing with the grant of equivalence of educational qualifications. It is widely experienced that one State does not automatically grant recognition to educational qualifications obtained from another State and educational standard vary drastically. The most effective solution is to be found in students appearing in one of the Central Board examinations such as conducted by the CBSE. The difficulties and problems that are endemic in varying and deferring standards of State Education Boards would automatically be obviated.
8. In this analysis, therefore, the CBSE is adopting a retro gate practice and stand in insisting that State clearances should be taken even by School which are private and unaided. In the present times, control and interference of the State is consciously being minimised. It would be a progressive step if educational institutions maintain themselves and regulate their affairs without drawing upon the State funds for which there invariably are many other suppliants. Where the parents of students are unable to afford the fees of private institutions, State schools should be available, as they presently are. No further regulation of education is called for. It is this ethos which has been expressed in the Constitution of the CBSE itself. All institutions which fall in the category of being private and unaided need not therefore obtain the concurrence and prior approval of a State Government for applying for affiliation to the CBSE. This is also what the Constitution of the CBSE itself envisages. The Bye-laws of the CBSE which require the concurrence and/or approval of the State Government are clearly ultra virus, and are, therefore, struck down. Private institution which obtains affiliation to the CBSE or any other Central Board need not have any connection with the State in which it is located, apart from it following and adhering to local laws including labour legislation.
The CBSE then appealed the decision in the Delhi High Court, which was heard by the Chief Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice Madan Lokur who delivered a judgment on December 09, 2005 which set aside the judgment of September 08, 2005 of Justice Vikaramajit Sen and dismissed the original writ petition filed by Tushar Welfare Society. Some excerpts from the December 09, judgment make interesting reading.
15. In Para 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the CBSE is discharging the function of conducting examinations, prescribing educational courses and generally maintaining standards of school education and advising the Government of India when called upon to do so on matters pertaining to school education. The CBSE frames its own rules and is governed by them and it has not been created under any statute. The CBSE is an autonomous and independent body, and no part of its expenses for running the organization is borne by the Government. It gets no aid, grant or subsidy from the Government and is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
This is an interesting point, which I had not been aware of. According to the CBSE web site, "CBSE is a self-financing body which meets the recurring and non-recurring expenditure without any grant–in–aid either from the Central Govt. or from any other source. All the financial requirements of the Board are met from the annual examination charges, affiliation fee, PMT examination etc."
But the CBSE web site also states that the "The Education Secretary, MHRD, Govt. of India is the Controlling Authority of the Board. If the Board does not, within a reasonable time, take action, to the satisfaction of the Controlling Authority, the Controlling Authority may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Board, issue such directions, consistent with this Resolution, as he may think fit, and the Board shall comply with such directions." So its autonomy is questionable.
17. Thus it is evident that although the CBSE was initially created by the Central Government by the Resolution dated 01.07.1929, subsequently the appellant was registered as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Hence after its registration on 02.01.1935 it ceased to be a limb of the Central Government and became an independent and distinct legal entity.
24. In Para 06 of the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has observed :- So far as regulations or bye-laws vis-à-vis a statute are concerned it is firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that a delegate would exceed the jurisdiction and the powers vested in it if it were to go beyond the provisions of the Statute which has created it.
5.There is no disputing the proposition which the learned Single Judge has referred to in the above observation. However, with due respect to the learned Judge what has not been taken into consideration by him is that there was no statute which created the CBSE but only a Resolution of the Central Government dated 01.07.1929. That Resolution is only an executive order and not a statute. Subsequently, the CBSE became a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 02.01.1935. Hence from 02.01.1935, the society is no longer a limb of the Central Government, but is a distinct legal entity like a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Hence from 02.01.1935 the CBSE is no longer governed by the Resolution of the Central Government dated 01.07.1929. It is this vital point which has been over looked by the learned Single Judge and hence in our opinion, the said judgment cannot be sustained.
26. The learned Single Judge in Para 8 of the impugned judgment has further observed:- In this analysis, therefore, the CBSE is adopting a retrograde practice and stand in insisting that State clearances should be taken even by Schools which are private and unaided. In the present times, control and interference of the State is consciously being minimized. It would be a progressive step if educational institutions maintain themselves and regulate their affairs without drawing upon the State funds for which there invariably are many other suppliants. Where the parents of students are unable to afford the fees of private institutions, State schools should be available, as they presently are.
No further regulation of education is called for. It is this ethos which has been expressed in the Constitution of the CBSE itself.
All institution which fall in the category of being private and unaided need not therefore, obtain the concurrence and prior approval of a State
Government for applying for affiliation to the CBSE
27. With profound respect to the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that using language like "retrograde practice" and remarks like "in the present times, control and interference of the State is consciously being minimized", are wholly irrelevant and misplaced. The court has to decide a case on legal principles and not on its own notions of what is "retrograde" and what is "progressive".
34. In our opinion, it is entirely for the Board to lay down the rules for grant of affiliation. This is a policy matter, and it is not proper for this Court to interfere in this.
45. The bye-law 3(i) which requires a No Objection Certificate from the State Government before grant of affiliation to a school is a policy decision of the CBSE, and it is well settled that in policy matters this court should not ordinarily interfere.
The Independent Schools Federation of India has appealed in the Supreme Court on April 13, 2006 against the Delhi High Court judgment of December 09, 2005. The Hindu (April 16, 2006) reported on this appeal.
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central Board of Secondary Education on a special leave petition challenging a Delhi High Court order, which said it was mandatory for a school seeking CBSE affiliation to obtain a no-objection certificate" (NoC) from the State Government concerned. A Bench consisting of Justices K.G. Balakrishanan and P.P. Naolekar issued the notice on Thursday.
The petitioner, Independent Schools Federation of India, contended that the by-law, making it mandatory for schools seeking affiliation to the CBSE to get the NOC, was volatile of the government resolution by which the board was constituted. As per this resolution, affiliation could not be denied to an unaided school if it failed to secure the NOC.
The petitioner said it represented hundreds of unaided public schools seeking affiliation to the CBSE in the interest of the children of government servants with transferable jobs, who might otherwise have to contend with different syllabi and different courses being followed in various States.
The petitioner cited clause 9 of the July 1, 1929 Central Government resolution, which laid down that the State Government's concurrence was mandatory if a school was getting grant-in-aid from it. This clause was not applicable to unaided public schools, which were not getting any grant-in-aid from the State.
Note the mention of the terms "public schools" and "children of government servants with transferable jobs" in the report above. What is meant by "public schools"? How are they different from private, unaided schools on which the Delhi High Court had ruled earlier?
While The Hindu had reported on the September 08, 2005 ruling by the Delhi High Court, I could not find any report on the Delhi High Court order on December 09, 2005 overturning the September ruling of the Delhi High Court. The Hindu's latest report (April 16, 2005) on the appeal in the Supreme Court makes no mention of the overturning of the September ruling on December 09, 2005, except to say it was being challenged in the Supreme Court. Not very good reporting by The Hindu, I must say. I had to dig around for the various rulings to piece together the puzzle.
April 13, 2006
The Executive and the Legislature are ceding influence to the Judiciary
Shiksha Bachao Andolan has filed public interest litigation in the Patna High court claiming that Rs. 1,100 Crores of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan funding that was given to the Govt. of Bihar remains unutilized and many posts of principals and teachers remain vacant.
The Patna High Court (HC) on Wednesday took exception to the deterioration in the school education system, especially middle schools, of Bihar. The high court asked the state government to file an affidavit outlining the present education scenario in Bihar. The high court fixed the next date for hearing on May 2 and directed the Bihar Education Project (BEP) director to be present in the court on that day. says The Times of India (April 13, 2006)
Citizens shouldn't be looking to the courts in such situations - the Opposition parties must be raising this in the state legislature. But if the executive fails to provide basic governance, let alone good governance, and on top of it the opposition legislators fail to challenge the executive for their omissions and commissions, what're citizens to do? By abdicating their responsibilities, the Executive and the Legislature are digging their own grave and ceding influence to the Judiciary.
The ongoing case of the AICTE vs. Deemed Universities (summarised by Badri) is another case in point. The UGC could have quickly stepped in asking the deemed universities to fall in line with the AICTE's norms and ensured that the deemed universities did so. But as Alok pointed out, the UGC and the AICTE don't seem to get along and that has resulted in a lot of confusion for the students who have been the most affected - all because the executive is not doing its job properly. Again the legislature seems to be least bit interested in raising this in Parliament and the courts are the last resort for the citizens.
]
April 12, 2006
Solution to the reservation issue? It's the supply, stupid!
Why have we been debating reservations right from the 1950s and not made them redundant yet? It’s only because the supply of educational opportunities continues to remain limited and scarce. If there were enough high quality insitutions (schools, colleges, IITs, IIMs, and institutions of all other kinds), no one would need to clamor for reservations or endlessly debate the percentages. But as long as the supply is restricted, there is no alternative to reservations - indeed they are necessary.
This scarcity of educational opportunities is of our own doing. Our successes in the food and telecom sectors in addressing scarcities are pointers to what could have been in the education sector. There's no reason why we can't replicate the success in the education sector too.
The Food Sector experience
There was a time when we were not able to grow enough food in the country to feed all our people and had to go with a begging bowl asking other countries to send us food. At that time, food had to be rationed so everyone would get a basic minimum quantity. Thanks to the Green Revolution, we now produce enough food to feed everyone and more, though there may still be logistical and quality challenges in getting the food to one and all. Today's ration shops are only in name - they've now morphed into a distribution channel for subsidised food to the economically weaker sections of society.
Not only do we produce enough for ourselves, today we have enough of a food surplus to be able to export agricultural produce of various kinds. The government did not take on the responsibility for producing all the food by itself - it relied on private citizens and organisations that produced the food for profit. Despite private for-profit involvement, there has been no profiteering in this sector. If anything, profiteering was rampant in the ration era where food was diverted from the ration shops to the black market.
The Government plays an important regulatory role in terms of ensuring food quality by enforcing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 and also setting up and managing the ISI and Agmark Standard for quality and purity of food products.
The Telecom Sector experience
There was a time when getting a phone line meant a waiting list of a few years. The lucky ones were able to jump the queue through special quotas for doctors, government officials etc. Thanks to the new telecom policy which opened up the telecom sector to private investment, today, every one in India can think of getting oneself a mobile phone at a very affordable price for the handset and very attractive schemes for monthly usage. Indeed the prices of both mobile handsets and the monthly plans have been consistently dropping. While both state-owned BSNL and the private telecom operators are for-profit organisations, making profits, there has been no profiteering in the telecom sector.
The Government plays an important regulatory role through the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to regulate both private and the state owned telecom operators. TRAI lays down the standards for provision of telecom services and enforces those standards to ensure that the telecom operators provide a minimum quality of service to customers.
Lessons from the food and telecom sector
The factors that led to expansion of supply of food and the provision of telecom services to the entire population and the shift from a rationing scenario to a situation of plenty were simple.
The Government relied on private participation to produce food / provide telecom services to augment the government's own efforts to expand supply.
The Government allowed the private sector to get involved on a for-profit basis to make it attractive for private sector participation
The Government devised and enforced regulations, which were aimed at regulating the quality of the food/telecom service.
There is no reason why we can't envision a similar transition from a scenario of scarcity of educational opportunities necessitating reservations, to a situation of plenty of educational opportunities for all. What we need today in India is the equivalent of the Green Revolution or the Telecom Revolution in the area of education - I'll call it the Opportunity Revolution, to coin a term.
The Opportunity Revolution
The Opportunity Revolution should be based on a set of simple principles
Our fundamental mission must be to provide educational opportunities for all our citizens right from the primary level through to higher education. That is the end to aim for, and all possible means to achieve that end must be used.
The Government clearly does not have enough financial resouces to provide education for all citizens all by itself. So the Government must actively invite private sector participation at all levels to augment the government's own efforts.
The private sector must be allowed to operate on a for-profit basis. That has worked very well in both the food and telecom sectors and could work well in the education sector too. Allowing for-profit involvement in education is likely to result in a huge amount of private sector investment in education to rapidly expand the supply of educational opportunities.
The Government must regulate the quality of education provided by both the state-run institutions as well as private sector institutions. The Government must NOT aim to regulate the growth of the education sector, indeed it must encourage unprecedented growth without compromising on quality. All educational institutions must be required to obtain quality ratings from independent rating authorities like CRISIL, ICRA or CARE. Educational institutions must be held responsible for any fall in quality below minimum published standards and subject to penalties, just like in the food and telecom sectors.
The Government must ensure that all educational institutions operate transparently in terms of their finances and publish detailed financial and other academic information and make it available to students, parents and the public at large to enable them to make informed choices on which institutions to attend.
The Government must allow the educational institutions the freedom to set their fee structures and not insist on capping the fees at figures like 20% of operating costs, as has been suggested.
If all this were to happen, the supply of educational opportunities would expand rapidly and not only would we be able to provide education for all our citizens, we could also look at exporting education by providing education in India to foreign students.
August 31, 2005
Kesavananda Bharati judgement will be the key to interpreting new legislation on reservations in private unaided colleges
All political parties without exception have expressed their unhappiness with the Supreme Court's recent judgement in the P.A. Inamdar case, in which the Court declared that the State cannot impose its reservation policies and quotas on private unaided colleges (which take no money from the State).
There seems to be a consensus among political parties for amending the Constitution to impose the State's reservation policies on the private unaided colleges. Any attempt to amend the Constitution*, is likely to result in legal tangles and the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgement will be the key to interpreting any new legislation.
A report in The Hindu (August 29, 2005) quotes Soli Sorabjee, the eminent lawyer saying as much.
The former Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee, said the legislation proposed by the Centre would come under judicial scrutiny. Any law that affected the basic structure of the Constitution could come under legal scrutiny, and the Supreme Court could strike it down.
He disagreed with the view that if the proposed law were to be included under the Ninth Schedule, it would become non-justifiable. On Center’s plan to enact a law on the subject, he said it had to be interpreted whether it falls under the ambit of the basic structure of the Constitution.
An article on the basic structure of the Indian Constitution on the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative web site throws some light on the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
Parliament added the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution through the very first amendment in 1951 as a means of immunizing certain laws against judicial review. Under the provisions of Article 31, which themselves were amended several times later, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule -- pertaining to acquisition of private property and compensation payable for such acquisition -- cannot be challenged in a court of law on the ground that they violated the fundamental rights of citizens. This protective umbrella covers more than 250 laws passed by state legislatures with the aim of regulating the size of land holdings and abolishing various tenancy systems. The Ninth Schedule was created with the primary objective of preventing the judiciary - which upheld the citizens' right to property on several occasions - from derailing the Congress party led government's agenda for a social revolution.
Later on, laws relating to the nationalisation of certain sick industrial undertakings, the regulation of monopolies and restrictive trade practices, transactions in foreign exchange, abolition of bonded labour, ceiling on urban land holdings, the supply and distribution of essential commodities and reservation benefits provided for Scheduled Castes and Tribes in Tamil Nadu were added to the Ninth Schedule through various constitutional amendments.
But the famous Kesavananda Bharati judgement in 1973 changed everything.
All laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement were open to review in the courts. They can be challenged on the ground that they are beyond Parliament's constituent power or that they have damaged the basic structure of the Constitution. In essence, the Supreme Court struck a balance between its authority to interpret the Constitution and Parliament's power to amend it.
A.N. Jayaram, former Advocate-General of Karnataka is quoted in Frontline (August 2004) as saying,
It is settled law "that a post-1973 legislation will not acquire judicial immunity merely by inclusion in the Ninth Schedule and can be subjected to judicial review".
A detailed article in Frontline (May 2001) has this to say on the basic structure doctrine in the context of the Kesavananda Bharati case.
On April 24, 1973, a Special Bench comprising 13 Judges of the Supreme Court of India ruled by a majority of 7-6, that Article 368 of the Constitution "does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution" (Kesavananda Bharati vs. The State of Kerala; AIR 1973 S.C. 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225).
It, however, overruled a decision of a Special Bench of 11 Judges, by a majority of 6-5, on February 27, 1967, that "Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights" (I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors.: AIR 1967 S.C. 1643, (1967) 2 SCJ 486).
Instead, the court propounded what has come to be known as "the basic structure" doctrine. Any part of the Constitution may be amended by following the procedure prescribed in Article 368. But no part may be so amended as to "alter the basic structure" of the Constitution. It is unamendable.
Here's the relevant extract from the Kesavananda Bharati Judgement.
292. The learned Attorney-General said that every provision of the Constitution is essential; otherwise it would not have been put in the Constitution. This is true. But this does not place every provision of the Constitution in the same position. The true position is that every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided in the result the basic foundation and structure of the constitution remains the same. The basic structure may be said to consist of the following features: (1) Supremacy of the Constitution; (2) Republican and Democratic form of Government; (3) Secular character of the Constitution; (4) Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary; (5) Federal character of the Constitution.
293. The above structure is built on the basic foundation, i.e., the dignity and freedom of the individual. This is of supreme importance. This cannot by any form of amendment be destroyed.
Soli Sorabjee had assisted Nani Palkhivala in arguing the Kesavananda Bharati case in which Palkhivala persuaded the Supreme Court to accept the basic structure doctrine. Soli Sorabjee, while delivering the First Palkhivala Memorial lecture on Palkhivala and the Constitution of India in February 2003 in Chennai, said
To my mind, Kesavananda Bharati was Palkhivala's greatest contribution to our constitutional jurisprudence. The judgment has been a salutary check on Parliament's tendency to ride roughshod over fundamental rights and its insatiable appetite to encroach upon fundamental rights.
What outraged Palkhivala was the tinkering with the Constitution by the politicians, its frequent amendment as if it were a Municipal Licensing Act or the Drugs Act, the failure to preserve the integrity of our Constitution against many hasty and ill-considered changes, the fruits of passion and ignorance. His firm belief was that Parliament's amending power is not absolute; the amending power is subject to inherent and implied limitations which do not permit Parliament to destroy any of the essential features of the Constitution and thereby damage the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is likely to be the key to interpreting and challenging any new legislation or constitutional amendment, imposing the State's reservation quotas on private unaided colleges, to determine if it violates the basic structure of the constitution or not.
--------------
* The Rajya Sabha web site provides an overview of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, the salient features of Article 368, which confers the power on Parliament to amend the Constitution and prescribes the procedure to do so, the various Constitution Amendments introduced in the Rajya Sabha, and the three categories of amendments - by simple majority, by special majority and by ratification of at least half of the State Legislatures after being passed by a special majority.
August 23, 2005
State control over fee cap is simply untenable
The following article of mine appeared in the op-ed section (fe Insight) in the Financial Express today (August 23, 2005).
Without doubt, as a society, we must strive to provide opportunities for quality higher education for all. In the ideal scenario, the state ought to provide such opportunities for all and subsidies it for those from the poorer sections. Article 41 of the Constitution (one of the Directive Principles of State Policy) as it relates to education, says: “The state shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to education.”The state has, so far, failed in its efforts to provide opportunities for higher education to all and is fully aware that within the limits of its economic capacity, it cannot do so in the foreseeable future. The private sector has been playing an important role in supplementing the state’s efforts at increasing the overall supply of higher education. Taking the private sector’s role for granted, the state has conveniently abdicated its responsibility to provide education for all, and has been forcing the private sector to subsidies education for the socially backward sections.Two main issues brought to the fore by the recent Supreme Court judgment are restrictions on the state’s ability to impose reservations for the socially backward sections and set the fee structure with caps in unaided private institutions. The SC has ruled that the state cannot enforce its reservation policies in minority or non-minority unaided institutions and that such institutions are free to devise their own fee structures, as long as they don’t charge capitation fees and do not indulge in profiteering. The ruling is difficult to fault.All political parties, without exception, are worried that the removal of reservations in private institutions would be a big blow to social justice, and they have a point. Socially backward sections have been benefiting from access to higher education through reservations, which are not purely merit-based, and they will lose out. There is talk of bringing about legislation to enable reservations in private institutions to continue. This legislation is certain to be passed in one form or another, given the overwhelming support for it across the political spectrum.What are the implications of continuing with reservations? Reservations per se may not be a problem for private unaided institutions, if the state agrees to pay the full fees for those students who join the private institutions under the reservation quotas. Private institutions would have no cause for complaint. The problem arises if the state caps the fees for students in the reservation quota far lower than the full fees, without agreeing to compensate private institutions for the lower fee income, thereby preventing these institutions from recovering their costs from fees, let alone making a surplus. More than the reservations, it is the state’s control over the fee cap that is simply untenable.Rather than worrying about the state imposing reservations on private unaided institutions, we need to focus on preventing the state from forcing the private sector to bear the burden of subsidising education for the socially backward classes. Our aim should be to try and ensure that any new legislation that is passed makes it compulsory for the state to bear the full costs of funding the education of all students admitted under the reservation quota in private institutions. If it cannot bear the costs itself, it could at least provide loans to students to be paid back over a long term.At the same time, any new legislation must also ensure that all educational institutions, public and private, are transparent, non-exploitative and accountable to society, especially in devising their fee structure. As in the financial sector, all educational institutions must also be required to periodically disclose the details of their finances and operations. This would prevent them from charging capitation fees or profiteering.It will be financially unviable for private institutions to subsidise education on a sustainable basis, if the state doesn’t take care of the subsidy. If forced to do so, most private institutions will fold up and there will also be no incentive for the private sector to set up any new institutions.One of the most important challenges before us today is to increase the supply of higher education. Efforts need to be focused on ensuring that any new legislation doesn’t affect our ability to do so.
Implications of the Right to Information Act (2005) for higher education institutions
The recently passed Right to Information (RTI) Act has some very interesting implications in the area of education, especially higher education.
First some background about the RTI Act. The Government of India has passed the Right to Information Bill which is now known as The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005). The bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on May 11, 2005 and by the Rajya Sabha on May 12, 2005 and received the assent of the president on June 15, 2005. Indiatogether.org has an excellent section on the RTI Act with latest updates and details of the implications of the Act. So does Parivartan.com.
The UGC 's web site explains the implications of the RTI Act for higher education (emphasis mine).
The Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) has been enacted by the Parliament and has come into force from 15 June, 2005. This Act provides for right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
All Universities and Colleges established by law made by Parliament or by State Legislature or by notification by the appropriate Government or owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the Government shall come within the meaning of a Public Authority under this Act.
Whereas, some provisions of this act have come into effect immediately on its enactment (that is on 15 June 2005), other provisions shall come into effect on 100 / 120 days of its enactment.
All universities and colleges are therefore advised to carefully go through this Act and take necessary steps for implementation of various provisions including proactive disclosure of certain kind of information. Such information shall be made available to the public at large through the website by the concerned university/college.
This means enough information should now be available to the students, parents (and society at large) to evaluate the quality and capabilities of every higher education institution and help them make informed choices.
International higher education headed for a sub-prime style crash?
Just as many universities want to be global players, so in the housing sector, buyers and financial industries wanted to participate in a growing and lucrative market. House prices were rising fast, and few questions were asked about products, sellers or buyers. The market was allowed to function without constraint. "Irrational exuberance" set in, with the market becoming saturated - a "bubble" mentality. The bubble has now burst and many countries face very serious economic and social consequences.
International higher education stands in the middle of that cycle - somewhere between exuberance and a bubble - so now is the time to examine which actions are sustainable, which policies will serve the interests of students and the academy, and which actions constitute mistaken policy or greed.
International education has become big business, with perhaps 3 million students studying outside their own countries, and billions of pounds, euros and dollars being generated from tuition, living expenses, branch campuses, franchises and much else. No one knows how many branch campuses exist, but estimates are in the hundreds, almost all in developing or middle-income countries. The market is large, growing and basically unregulated. It is indeed the Wild West or, more accurately, the Wild East.
One might take the view that "the market will sort itself out". Here again, a comparison can be made with sub-prime mortgages. In that sector, today's crisis was reached by allowing unscrupulous players to operate, and by encouraging respectable banks to buy up risky debt with little regulation. There is a similar mentality in international higher education. In this largely unregulated market, some sellers are prestigious universities hoping to build links overseas, recruit top students to their home campuses and strengthen their brand abroad. But many more are sub-prime institutions: sleazy recruiters, degree packagers, low-end private institutions seeking to stave off bankruptcy through the export market and even a few respectable universities forced by government funding cutbacks to raise cash elsewhere.
Buyers such as students but also institutions in developing countries are similarly unregulated, sometimes ill-informed and often naive. Most tragically, students buy services without much information or understanding.
Uninformed or simply avaricious institutions in developing countries may form partnerships with low-quality colleges and universities in, for example, the US, Australia and the UK, and receive substandard teaching or degree courses. Regulation may be absent or inappropriate, making quality assurance impossible.
There are not enough top-quality universities in countries such as China and India to absorb all the potential overseas partners. Further, most institutions worldwide lack the infrastructures to engage successfully in sophisticated international initiatives.
I couldn't agree more with his suggestion and his proposed solution to avoid the impending crash.
Clear regulation is needed, probably by government authority, to ensure that national interests are served and that students do not receive a shoddy service from unscrupulous providers. This will also help universities think about their motivations for entering the market.
We badly need an effective educational regulator in India like SEBI, the RBI or TRAI, which regulate the capital markets, the banking sector and the telecom sector respectively. Will the Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE) see the light of day and more importantly have the teeth and competence to regulate well, if it does indeed come about?
Data and statistics on education in India
For handy reference
LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 235 - ANSWERED ON 27.02.2007 As per the 7th All India School Education Survey (with reference date as on 30.9.2002) conducted by the NCERT, out of a total of 63,576 secondary schools in rural areas, 29,071 (45.72%) were privately managed. Out of them, 16,694 (26.25%) were private aided and 12,377 (19.47%) were private un-aided.
LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 954 - ANSWERED ON 06.03.2007 65% of the 6,306 teacher training institutions in India recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education are in just 5 states - Karnataka (1,102), Maharashtra (881), Uttar Pradesh (782), Tamil Nadu (719) and Gujarat (585).
RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 4153 - ANSWERED ON 14.05.2007288 proposals / requests for inclusion in the list of colleges prepared under Section 2(f) & 12(B) of the UGC Act, 1956, were either pending or under correspondence with the UGC as on 31.03.2007, of which 64% were in just 5 states - Maharashtra (81), Uttar Pradesh (32), Madhya Pradesh (29), Kerala and Orissa (21 each).
RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 2805 - ANSWERED ON 10.09.2007According to the information furnished by the University Grants Commission (UGC), there are 388 Degree granting institutions (as on 16.8.2007) including under Section 2 (f) of the UGC Act, 1956. These Degree granting institutions comprise 221 State Universities, 24 Central Universities, 11 Private Universities, 114 Institutions Deemed to be Universities, 13 Institutions of National Importance and 5 Institutions established under State legislations. Of the 232 State universities (including 11 Private Universities), 161 universities are recognized by the UGC for grants under Section 12B of the UGC Act.
According to a state-wise list of 371 recognized State Universities/ Private Universities/ Central Universities/ and Deemed to be Universities in India as on 16.08.2007, Maharashtra has 41, Tamil Nadu has 35, Uttar Pradesh has 35, Karnataka has 25, Andhra Pradesh has 24, Rajasthan has 22 and Gujarat has 21.
RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 3388 ANSWERED ON 07.05.2007According to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, 38 Indian companies have received FDI inflows in education sector during the period from April, 2004 to December, 2006. According to the All India Council. For Technical Education, three Indian institutions have been approved by them for foreign collaboration programmes. Some proposals from Indian Education Providers for collaboration with Foreign Universities/Institutions to impart technical education in India leading to award of Diploma, Degree including Post Graduate Degrees are being processed by them.
LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 3623 - ANSWERED ON 27.04.2007 The amount collected through the Education Cess for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 (Up to Feb` 2007) is as under (Rs. in crore) :Financial Year 2004-05: Direct Taxes - 1,804.51 and Indirect Taxes 2,514Financial Year 2005-06: Direct Taxes - 3,213.75 and Indirect Taxes 4,424Financial Year 2006-07: Direct Taxes - 2,982.00 and Indirect Taxes 3,851(up to Feb. 2007)
The proceeds of the Education Cess credited to Prarambhik Shiksha Kosh are spent on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and Mid-Day Meal Scheme (MDM) which are being implemented to achieve the goal of universalization of elementary education. Each year, after exhausting the funds provided by way of Gross Budgetary Support for the schemes of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and Mid-Day Meal, subsequent expenditure on these schemes is financed from Prarambhik Shiksha Kosh.
LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 4224 - ANSWERED ON 04.05.2007 According to the available official statistics, the expenditure on R&D in the field of Science & Technology as percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 0.8% during the year 2002-03 in India.
For perspective, countries spending the most on S&T as a % of their GDP were Israel (5.11%), Sweden (4.27%), Japan (3.11%), S. Korea (2.91%), USA (2.67%), Germany (2.64%) and France (2.27%). Among other countries, China spent (1.23%), Russia (1.24%) and Brazil (1.04%) and U.K. (1.88%).
LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 5642 - ANSWERED ON 16.05.2007 There are 16,540 private dental colleges in India, of which 63% are in just 5 states - Karnataka (2,840), Uttar Pradesh (2,510), Maharastra (1,990), Andhra Pradesh (1,610) and Tamil Nadu (1,380).The Dental Council of India had made a proposal for imposing moratorium on opening of new dental colleges in the country for a period of 5 years. However, the Central Government has not agreed to the said proposal, keeping in view the fact that permissions for opening of new Dental Colleges are granted only on compliance of the requirements laid down in the Regulations and the need for more dentists to ensure better oral health.
RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 2917 - ANSWERED ON 30.04.2007 The University Grants Commission (UGC) has been inviting fresh proposals each year for grant of autonomous status to eligible colleges under its Scheme of Autonomous Colleges. Any university may also send circulars asking its affiliated colleges to apply. The number of Autonomous Colleges has grown from 204 as on 31.3.2005 to 265 at present.
RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 148 - ANSWERED ON 13.08.2007 As per the information furnished by All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE), the number of engineering colleges recognized as on 31st July, 2007 is 1617. 403 new engineering colleges have applied for recognition with AICTE in the academic year 2007-08 out of which 106 engineering colleges fulfill the norms and have been issued letter of approval. According to the state-wise list of engineering colleges, Andhra Pradesh has 292 with 113 fresh applications, Tamil Nadu has 286 with 53 fresh applications, Maharashtra has 181 with 21 fresh applications, Karnataka has 134 with 23 fresh applications and Uttar Pradesh has 125 with 43 fresh applications. 63% of the engineering colleges are in just 5 states.
RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 2677 - ANSWERED ON 15.12.2006 The number of medical colleges as on 31st March, 2006 was 242. State-wise number of medical colleges is given in the statement at Annexure.
As per the information on the web site of the Medical Council of India (MCI), the number of medical colleges in India offering MBBS as on 16.11.2007 is 271, of which 255 are recognised. 63% of the medical colleges are in just 6 states - Maharashtra (40), Karnataka (39), Andhra Pradesh (32), Tamil Nadu (25), Kerala (18), Uttar Pradesh (16).The number of MBBS seats in India as on 16.11.2007 is about 30,000, of which 66% are in the same 6 states mentioned above.
As per the answer to RAJYA SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 4086 - ANSWERED ON 11.05.2007, The Central Government does not maintain data regarding number of candidates who apply for Post Graduate Medical Courses and the number of Post Graduate Seats available in the country during the last five years. However, the number of seats available in various PG courses as on 4.5.2007 is 11,005. The State-wise details are in the Annexure. The Essentiality and desirability to increase the number of PG seats in Medical Colleges is determined by the respective State Governments/U.T.s based on their needs, priorities and availability of resources.
Based on such essentiality and desirability, the Central Government grants permission under section 10(A) of IMC Act, 1956 to increase the seats in Medical Colleges after obtaining the recommendations of Medical Council of India in this regard.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is one of the important qualities in a person’s character. There are many ways one can create confidence among others and make good relationships out of that. Trust is the best investment for reaping better rewards in a group.
It is not just that we trust only our friends, relatives and near and dear ones.
As a whole, one has to cultivate contacts in such a manner that they should have general trust and goodwill. There is a great need for a society to work tirelessly to create an atmosphere of friendliness and trustworthiness in this matter.
Otherwise, it is difficult to deliver results based on common goals and aspirations.
A guru is the best well-wisher, which is why we repose total trust in our masters and we also follow them with sheer confidence. Unless such dedication and belief are there, it is not easy to achieve set goals.
Guidance is what brings a direction in our Endeavour’s for success. Self-belief takes us to higher levels of confidence and ensures good results in all our efforts. With inner strength and care, we can go a long way in our day to day life. One has to trust oneself before he or she can think of taking up bigger responsibilities. With self-confidence, we can move forward and fulfill our life’s goals and aspirations. There is every reason for reminding our youth of great examples. Life has no meaning if one does not try to help others by winning their trust and confidence.
Aided minority institutions subject to regulations
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today re-defined the rights of `minorities' to establish and run educational institutions of their choice. It held that while unaided minority institutions would have unfettered rights, aided institutions could be subject to minimal regulatory measures by the state.
An 11-judge Constitution Bench, headed by the Chief Justice, B.N. Kirpal, in an unanimous verdict on the 11 questions framed by the Court held that the words "of their choice" in Article 30 (1) "indicates that even professional educational institutions would be covered by Article 30". On the question "who constitutes a minority", the Bench said, "The linguistic and religious minorities have to be considered on the basis of States and the population therein as the States were reorganized on the basis of language."
The main judgment of the Bench was written by Mr. Justice Kirpal. The Bench included Justice V.N. Khare, Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Justice S.S.M. Quadri, Justice Ruma Pal, Justice S.N. Variava, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Four other judgments giving different interpretations were written by Mr. Justice Khare, Mr. Justice Quadri, Ms. Justice Pal and Mr. Justice Bhan but they were in agreement with the broad conclusions.
While Article 30 (1) provides that "all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice", Article 29 (2) says "no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them".
On the contentious issue that the majority community also should have similar rights, the Bench held that "all citizens have a right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 19 (1) (g) and 26, but this right is subject to the provisions of Articles 19 (6), viz. reasonable restrictions and 26 (a), viz. to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes". It declined to answer the following questions — "what is meant by the expression `religion' in Article 30 (1)? Can the followers of a sect or denomination of a particular religion claim protection under Article 30 (1) on the basis that they constitute a minority in the State, even though the followers of religion are in the majority in the State?"
Explaining the extent of state control, the Bench said admission of students to unaided minority educational institutions (UMEI), where the scope for merit-based selection was practically nil, could not be regulated by the State Government or university, except for providing the qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility in the interest of academic standards. However, it said, this right was subject to the condition that "admission to the unaided educational institution was on a transparent basis and merit was adequately taken care of".
On aided institutions, the Bench made it clear that "a minority institution does not cease to be so, the moment grant-in-aid is received. An aided minority educational institution would be entitled to have the right of admission of students belonging to the minority group. At the same time, it would be required to admit a reasonable extent of non-minority students, so that the rights under Article 30 (1) are not substantially impaired and further, citizens' rights under Article 29 (2) are not infringed".
The Bench empowered the State Governments to notify the percentage of non-minority students to be admitted; it would vary according to the types of institutions, the courses of education and other factors such as educational needs. Observance of inter se merit amongst the minority group could also be ensured.
In the case of aided professional institutions, the Bench said it could be stipulated that passing of the common entrance test held by the state agency was necessary to seek admission. As regards non-minority students who were eligible to seek admission for the remaining seats, admission should normally be on the basis of a common entrance test.
On the rights of minorities to have their procedure of admission, the Bench said, "A minority institution may have its own procedure and method of admission as well as selection of students, but such a procedure must be fair and transparent and the selection of students in professional and higher educational colleges should be on the basis of merit."
Further, "the procedure adopted or selection made should not tantamount to maladministration. Even an UMEI ought not to ignore the merit of the students for admission while exercising its right to admit students to the colleges, as in that event, the institutions will fail to achieve excellence".
The Bench placed on record its appreciation of the Attorney General, Soli Sorabjee, for the assistance rendered by him.
Highlights
All citizens have right to establish and administer educational institutions.
The right to administer MEI not absolute.
State can apply regulations to unaided MEIs to achieve educational excellence.
Aided MEIs should admit certain percentage of non-minority students.
Percentage of non - minority students to be admitted to an aided MEI to be decided by the State or university.
Fees to be charged by unaided MEI cannot be regulated but no institution can charge capitation fee.
State can prescribe minimum qualification for teachers and principal in an unaided MEI.
Tribunal headed by District Judge should be constituted for redressal of grievance of employees of MEI.
State can provide the manner of admission in case of an aided MEI to ensure that it is done on the basis of merit.
Merit could be determined through common entrance test.
Unaided MEI could have their own procedure for admission but the same had to be fair and transparent. — PTI
To legalise exploitation
Employers seek a reversal of the labour laws to the extreme disadvantage of workers,
in order to be competitive in the "globalised world".
INDUSTRIALISTS in India are clamouring for a drastic amendment to labour laws. They want to be unshackled from the bothers of having to seek permission from the government before closing down factories and establishments. Employers would rather have "flexible" laws that would enable them to be nimble-footed in a competitive world where they need to be eternally aware of costs. It would appear that company boardrooms aim to reduce strife in the workplace so that everyone - including the workers - could get on with the task of production, at the cheapest price, in order to compete in this "globalised" world.
The 'Triumph of Labour' statue on the Marina in Chennai
To thousands of workers already on the streets because of the liberalisation process initiated in the 1990s, the notion of a debate on whether labour laws ought to be amended may appear to be a cruel joke. Thousands of workers - in the public and private sectors - have lost their jobs. The deregulation of industrial practices has led to greater casualisation and contractualisation, euphemisms for underpaid work with insecure tenures. Under the threat of impending job losses, thousands more have been virtually forced to opt for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Those who remain, hanging on to ill-paid and insecure jobs, find their workload increasing significantly. If the existing labour laws have failed to prevent all this and more from happening, why are workers and their unions fighting to preserve them at all? Conversely, why do employers want to change the laws when things have gone in their favour anyway?
The ire of employers is focussed on two pieces of legislation relating to labour. The first is the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947. The objective of the Act was to protect workers from the threat of unfair dismissal, that is, dismissal without a fair trial. In order to promote orderly industrial relations, the Act also provided for adjudication by labour tribunals if either party chose to raise an industrial dispute. A later amendment to the Act, effected in 1976, made employers more accountable to the society around them by mandating that employers required governmental clearance before closing down industrial units.
The other piece of legislation is the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970. Interestingly, this Act arose out of the Supreme Court's perception in the 1960s that the onerous conditions of contract labour are akin to slave labour. It was felt that this form of labour should be abolished, or, at the very least, regulated. It is obvious that industrial houses will benefit greatly if these two pillars of labour legislation are dismantled. Companies can hire and fire at will, on contractual terms that are far more onerous for workers.
THE fact that the ID Act was enacted in 1947 is itself of great significance. The gigantic waves of strikes by labour in the closing years of colonial India played a major part in the way the social compact emerged in the early years of Independence. Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Rajinder Sachar, founder-member of the Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) when it was formed in 1948, points out that the precursor to the ID Act was the Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946, which was initiated by Gulzarilal Nanda after the wave of industrial strikes in Ahmedabad in 1946. Seen from a historical perspective, the birth of the ID Act was an explicit acknowledgement that labour, the weaker partner in the industrial workplace, needed protection. The ID Act was thus seen as a weapon, albeit small, in the hands of trade unions and workers to prevent capital from riding roughshod over labour. However, this weapon was not sharp when it was wrought. It was tested in the courts and on the streets before it acquired a sharper edge. That weapon has, in recent times, been blunted again by the way the courts have interpreted the law. The vicissitudes of the legislation mirror in some way the tilting of the social balance, which has resulted in a virtual abrogation of the social compact that enabled the birth of such laws. There is a kernel of truth in trade union activists' claim that the dismantling of these and other rights - such as the right to strike - marks an attempt to reverse what has been won after long and hard battles.
The history of the implementation of the ID Act also reveals the changes in the way the courts interpreted the law. For instance, in the initial years after the promulgation of the ID Act, the courts' approach to the very notion of an "industry" and the concept of a "worker" was constrained within narrow parameters. Speaking to Frontline, N.G.R. Prasad, a senior advocate with expertise in labour laws, pointed out that until the Supreme Court ruling in 1978, delivered by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, the courts interpreted the purview of the ID Act rather narrowly. Persons working in service establishments such as universities and the Gymkhana Club in Chennai, for instance, were not deemed to be eligible to obtain the protection of the provisions of the ID Act. Krishna Iyer ruled that the mere fact of employment of a worker brought him under the purview of the ID Act. Prasad said: "The judgment reflected the belief that the law was intended to improve the lot of the working people."
Prasad said that though workers had to wait for years for justice at the hands of the labour tribunals, there was hope, particularly until the 1970s, that the courts would protect their interests. Initially, the courts only recognised an "industrial dispute" when workers raised a collective dispute against their managements. In effect, this meant that an individual worker who suffered "wrongful dismissal" could not approach the tribunal using the provisions of the ID Act. Sachar pointed out that the courts initially held that even if a worker suffered wrongful dismissal by a private employer, he could not seek reinstatement because the courts interpreted labour legislation as being bounded by civil law. Sachar said: "Later, progressive Judges took a big step by saying that the worker has a right to be reinstated if he suffered wrongful dismissal, without being curbed within the ambit of civil law." Sachar said that Justice Krishna Iyer "almost laid down the rule" that in case of "wrongful dismissal", the worker's reinstatement was to be "automatic". Employers no longer had the option of merely paying compensation to the affected worker. However, Sachar added that the position that a worker cannot be dismissed unfairly and that he had a right to reinstatement had changed in the last few years "purely by the way the courts have interpreted the law". In recent years, the interpretation appears to have swung back in favour of employers. Sachar referred to recent rulings by the Supreme Court which said that even if a worker was wrongfully dismissed, he could not ask for reinstatement.
Initially, companies argued that a dispute arising out of the dismissal of an individual worker did not amount to an "industrial dispute". Later, the introduction of Section 2 A in 1965 enabled aggrieved individual workers to approach the labour tribunal. Prior to the inclusion of this section, an individual worker or a "minority" group of workers could not approach the tribunal if the trade union did not sponsor their case. Although Sachar believes that this offered protection to workers belonging to smaller groups who could be easily victimised by managements, it has also "weakened" trade unionism. "The concept of a trade union as a collective body representing all sections of workers thus suffered a setback. But, on balance, the amendment was good," he said.
The provisions of the ID Act required that the government "refer" the dispute to the relevant labour tribunal. In effect, this prevented an affected worker or his union from approaching the tribunal directly for redress. Several State governments simply withheld reference to the tribunal, thus blocking the workers' access to courts. The Tamil Nadu government, for instance, had for several years prevented employees of the State Electricity Board from approaching the courts by simply refusing to refer their disputes to the labour tribunal. For instance, when the staff of the Board raised a dispute over payment of bonus, the State government refused to refer the matter to the tribunal. The government claimed that it could not afford to pay bonus. Prasad pointed out a "path-breaking" judgment of the Supreme Court in 1978 that ruled that the government "could not assume the power to adjudicate a dispute between the workers and their managements". This was reconfirmed by another judgment of the Supreme Court in 1985. Prasad said that while the ID Act had "enabled the worker to access the government" for redress of his grievance, the changed interpretation of the law enabled the worker to approach the courts for fair redress of his grievances.
The 1970s was possibly the most tumultuous in terms of industrial unrest since Independence. The rising tide of industrial closures, lockouts and lay-offs resulted in growing unrest among workers. The "law and order problem" that resulted from industrial action forced the government to act, even if only symbolically. The government, by virtue of having provided vital infrastructure for many industrial facilities, had a direct stake as employers closed shop at will. The provisions of the ID Act with respect to closures were rather lenient. Employers could retrench workers by merely paying one month's notice pay and 15 days' compensation. In case of closure or lay-off, they needed to pay only compensation; and, even this payment could be deferred. Prasad observed: "For employers the issue of closures was merely a matter of paying a trifle as compensation to workers." In 1976, even as the Emergency was in force, Chapter V B was introduced in the ID Act. Chapter V B required that employers got permission from the government for the closure of industrial units employing more than 100 workers. Although this was later struck down by the Supreme Court, the government amended the ID Act to strengthen the safeguards against whimsical closures by managements. It is significant that this provision, which the government was unwilling to repeal when it was challenged in the courts, is a prime target of the industrial lobby led by foreign companies. Employers are demanding that the limit set by Chapter V B be raised.
THE freedom to close industrial units at will is one of the two major planks of the industrial lobby. The other is the withdrawal of provisions relating to the control and elimination of the use of contract labour. It is significant that the Contract Labour Act itself arose out of the collective learning process that Indian courts went through since the 1950s. In 1960, ten years before the Act came into being, the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in a case involving the employment of contract labour in the Standard Vacuum Oil company. The Supreme Court ruled that the company could not employ contract workers. It went further by ruling that the contract workers would be justified in raising an industrial dispute demanding the abolition of contract labour, using the provisions of the ID Act. In effect, the court's interpretation of the ID Act led to the enactment of the law to abolish contract labour. In 1970, Parliament passed the law, recognising that direct employment, instead of using the device of labour contractors, would lead to better terms of employment for workers. In particular, the law recognised that workers would be employed on a regular basis and paid fair wages. The law also recognised that workers engaged in work of a "perennial nature" could not be employed on contract.
While the law gave the government the power to control and regulate the use of contract workers in certain areas of economic activity, it also gave the government the power to prohibit the use of such labour in other areas. In 1976, the government issued a notification marking out the activities to be placed under these two broad heads. Section 10 of the Act lists the areas where contract labour is prohibited. The law requires that in the remaining areas, employers of contract labour should register themselves. Licences were also issued so that the government could ensure that those using contract labour followed safety and other work norms.
In 1997, a Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice K. Ramaswamy delivered a landmark judgment. It ruled that contract workers, who were working at the time the scheme to abolish contract labour was being implemented, had the right to be absorbed in the workforce on a permanent basis. Prasad pointed out that this logic rested on the premise that there was no point in abolishing contract labour if it would only lead to the loss of livelihood to thousands of workers who had worked on that basis for years. The court, Prasad said, "ensured that the remedy would not end up being worse than the disease". However, in 2001, in a case relating to Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that contract workers were not entitled to "automatic absorption". Prasad said that the judgment struck down the 1976 notification and termed it as "being bad in law". The judgment also ruled out any provision of direct absorption of contract workers who were employed at the time of abolition of contract labour. Prasad views this as a "retrograde step because workers on contract would be better off before abolition rather than after, because they would only lose the jobs they had at the time of abolition". Prasad said: "The judgment favours the propertied classes and is a big blow to the working class. It has encouraged many employers to employ contract labour. This judgment has given rise to a peculiar situation. Unions and workers would rather not fight for the abolition of contract labour because it only results in job losses."
Earlier this year the government constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) to finalise amendments to the ID Act and the Contract Labour Act. Although the government had initially said that it intended placing these for passage by Parliament, it appears that it fears stiff opposition to the move. Earlier, the GoM, taking its cue from the Second National Commission on Labour, demarcated activities that it deemed were "non-core" in nature. These activities, in which contract labour is regarded as acceptable, include maintenance, service and repair of machines and plants, construction and maintenance of bridges, roads and other infrastructure, hospitals, educational institutions, sweeping, garbage cleaning, gardening and so on. Tapan Sen, secretary, Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), observed that even by a conservative estimate, this would result in at least 80 per cent of the workforce in most industrial organisations being employed on short-term contracts.
The experience with labour legislation has been mixed. This can, at least in part, be attributed to the way changing social ethos influenced the interpretation of the legislation by the courts. While labour laws have not prevented the tide of liberal policies from flooding the workplace, they remain the only hope for India's working class. With all their imperfections, they remain the only hope that the courts will interpret the law in the spirit the nation had expected at the dawn of Independence. On the other side of the divide, employers are also aware that existing labour statutes have acted as a double-edged sword. They are aware that the weight of popular pressure can swing the pendulum of the law against their long-term interests. Their vociferous demand for the annulment of these laws reflects, in part, their concern about the uncertain terrain they are on in the face of growing unrest among the working class. Meanwhile, workers and their unions are engaged in a bitter struggle to save a set of laws, which they may have reason to believe, betrayed them. It is in this context that the adage that the rule of law is the only hope for the poor, the weak and the oppressed, is relevant to labour's fight to reclaim lost ground.
Changes announced by the National Institute of Open Schooling
The National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) declared the year starting with 15th August 2003 as year of “Quality Education” and has announced some important changes, along with justifications for the changes.
Flexibility regarding “no minimum qualification” “no age bar” for getting admission in NIOS, introduced from 2001 academic session, is under review.
I don't understand why the NIOS should be worried about an age limit. How old the student is when he/she is admitted should be irrelevant if he or she is able to do well in the exam. I hope the review doesn't result in introduction of an age limit. I don't see why there should be a minimum qualification either. As long as the student writes the exam and passes the exam, what the student did, or did not do, before writing the exam should be irrelevant.
Complete flexibility extended in choosing of subjects, introduced in 2003 admission, thus dispensing with language as a compulsory subject at pre degree level, has been withdrawn and status quo ante has been restored by making language compulsory (subject to a minimum of one and maximum of two) keeping in line with other Central Boards.
As against Para 3.2 (page 7 of the Prospectus 2003-04), pass in five subjects, including at least one but not more than two languages shall be required for Certification.
Justification provided: The students of NIOS are not put to hardship at the time of admission for Higher Education.
This is a good move. Proficiency in at least one language is desirable.
The decision taken earlier, giving unlimited chances, (as against one prevalent in other Central Boards), for improvement of performance in NIOS examinations, has been withheld for further review by the Academic Committee
Justification provided: To ensure that the quality of examination is not compromised and the uniformity with other School Boards is maintained.
The system of giving 20% weightage to Tutor Marked Assignments (TMA) in final results of the students in NIOS introduced from 2002 examination has been discontinued, subject to TMA being made compulsory and the relative grading in TMA being shown in the final certificate and the separate column (Grade obtained in TMA). Implement vide notification dated December 03 (Appendix -B).
The decision taken earlier to introduce Grading System has been deferred pending a review.
Justification provided: The standards and quality are maintained on par with other Central Boards.
To revert back to the old system prevailing prior to Oct 2000 and Accredited Institutions (AIs) delinked from examination centres and the exam centres fixed in Navodaya Vidyalayas, Kendriya Vidyalayas, Government aided schools & other reputed institutes. Under compelling circumstances in the absence of schools/institutes mentioned above, an AI may be made examination centre provided Centre Superintendent and the staff employed for examination do not work/belong to that AI.
The process of selection of Institution for accreditation has been tightened by entirely revamping the existing panel of team of persons for inspection of AIs. A decision has also been taken to fix responsibility if at a later stage it is found that the AI did not have the prescribed infrastructure.
Instead of AIs receiving the application and giving admission to students a proposal for having 'Online Admission’ and Regional Centres allotting the students to various AIs is being considered Ed. CIL has been entrusted to study and formulate the system in this regard.
A review is being conducted to make the study material a priced publication, instead of cost of study materials being included in the fees charged & supplying the materials free of cost to students.
Justification provided: The malpractice obtaining in certain Accredited Institutions is completely eliminated, as the major area of concern of NIOS is about credibility of NIOS and certificates issued by it.
Admissions:
Facilities of online admission on Web and Post Offices, Banks etc. to be introduced.This would be very helpful to enable students to get themselves admitted easily.
Scheme of direct admission for examination to be reviewed as it is not serving any useful purpose.
According to the NIOS web site, at present there are two channels available to Students for joining NIOS in order to get evaluated and certified in the Secondary stage of school education. These are:
By taking admission through Accredited Institutions (AIs), done once a year in the month of July-September: These Students receive study materials of NIOS, attend Personal Contact Programme and submit their Tutor Marked Assignments (TMAs) at their AIs. The TMA in each subject carries a weightage of 20 marks. The public examination is of 80 marks for these Students. These Students will have to appear in the examination in the subjects they have opted during admission. They may however, change their subjects or take additional subject by 15th October for April examinations and by 15th April for October examination.
By Direct Registration for Examinations done twice a year in the month of May and November in the Regional Centres of NIOS: Since these Students are not attached to any AI they do not receive any study material. Instead they have to procure study materials from the open market. No personal contact programmes are held for these Students and the scheme of TMA is not applicable for them. Thus the final public examinations carry a weightage of 100 marks for these students. The marks obtained out of 80 in the final examinations are raised proportionately to make it out of 100. These Students can change their examination subjects any time. They will be examined in the subjects they write in their examination forms.
They are proposing that students can only appear from exams if they register with an AI, which seems reasonable.
Minimum educational qualification and minimum age need to be prescribed in admissions in Secondary and Sr. Secondary coursesAs mentioned earlier, I don't understand why the NIOS should be worried about an age limit. How old the student is when he/she is admitted should be irrelevant if he or she is able to do well in the exam. I hope the review doesn't result in introduction of an age limit. I don't see why there should be a minimum qualification either. As long as the student writes the exam and passes the exam, what the student did, or did not do, before writing the exam should be irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Bihar
NOTHING much will happen in Bihar unless the State government and the people of the State pay attention to education and health ("Waiting for deliverance", February 23). It is unfortunate that the government is so keen to jump onto the "public-private-partnership" bandwagon. The government should be ready to shell out money towards primary education and basic health facilities for all. The backwardness of Bihar is further complicated by intricate caste divisions and the poor status of women in society. Women's emancipation can be achieved only by empowering them through education. It has to be ensured that each girl is sent to school.
Mind Over Matter
Philosophy teaches students to think critically, helping them in the profession of their choice, reports Er. Alok Kumar
Deep thoughts: (above) switches between teaching philosophy and writing novels
Philosophy is a field where people ask questions and create theories about reality.
“Every person is a philosopher and makes everyday decisions that have to do with reasoning,” says Alok Sharma, head of the department of philosophy at Magadh University.
At a time when the world is being ruled by technology and materialism, studying philosophy may not seem like a viable career choice.
But judging by the reaction of philosophy teachers and students, the great intellectual tradition from Aristotle to Wittgenstein is still intact.
“My favourite philosopher is Thales whose reasoning and logic I find extremely impressive and I am a great admirer of Bertrand Russell too,” remarks Gopinath Mondal, a postgraduate philosophy student at Jadavpur University.
“I have always been interested in the complexity of phenomena and started thinking about philosophy as a career option during my Higher Secondary days,” says Sritoma Bhattacharya who is doing her post graduation in philosophy from Jadavpur University.
She also has a bachelor’s degree in the subject and plans to appear for the School Service Examination after completing her MA.
Students of philosophy do well in whatever field they choose to enter because they learn to think critically, believes Indrani Sanyal, who teaches the subject at Jadavpur University. “The course sharpens basic thought processes,” she says.
The field of counseling is not something we ordinarily associate with philosophy but then the subject, as it is taught today, is not just about dry theoretical issues. “Philosophy today also deals with human rights, women’s rights, problems of old age and the patient-physician relationship,” says Sanyal. Philosophy students can eventually move to counseling, especially if they undergo some relevant course in psychology.
“Our students have successfully taken to counselling and some have also proceeded to become well known lawyers,” says Probal Kumar Sen, professor of philosophy at Calcutta University.
He mentions that Phani Bhushan Chakraborty and Surajit Lahiri, renowned judges of the Calcutta High Court, were students of philosophy. Adds JU’s Dutta Sharma,
“Philosophy embraces scientific methodology in topics like logical reasoning.
So philosophy students are well equipped to enter the legal profession.”
Philosophy also gels well with the field of literature and fiction.
The works of Jean Paul Sartre, Milan Kundera and Umberto Eco are considered to be masterpieces of literature as well as outstanding works of philosophy.
Most colleges affiliated to Calcutta University offer philosophy at the undergraduate level.
Students of any stream with a minimum of 55 per cent marks in their Higher Secondary or equivalent exam are eligible to apply.
“We take in 55 students for our BA course,” says Sanyal of JU.
The university also offers a postgraduate course in the subject, after which a student has the option of sitting for the National Eligibility Test (NET) or the State Eligibility Test (SLET).
The starting salary of a NET/SLET qualified professor can be anything between Rs 10,000 and Rs 12,000. A counsellor can expect to make between Rs 8,000 and Rs 10,000 to begin with.
Baishakhi Biswas, a philosophy student of Calcutta University who has taken up counseling,
says that it takes time to establish your credibility as a counselor.
“But if you can do your job well, clients will come,”he opines.
Some teachers, however, are cautious about recommending philosophy as a career choice.
Probal Kumar Sen points out that the option provided to Calcutta University students of writing their examinations in the vernacular stymies their ability to compete in exams like NET.
“It is a big handicap,” he says, adding that a good understanding of philosophy can only come about with the necessary command over the English language.
“One must know English well to comprehend the arguments of philosophers
like Derrida and Foucault,” he observes.
But for some, the pursuit of philosophy is one of unalloyed pleasure.
“In today’s materialistic world, the importance of philosophy is more than ever before.
The very fact that UNESCO has chosen November 17 as World Philosophy Day illustrates that decision makers the world over are now taking philosophy seriously,” signs off Dutta Sharma.
Stress on diversification of courses
Strengthening of the public funded system and diversification of courses will be the main emphasis when the government sanctions a new college or course in Kerala from the new academic year.
Maximum geographical distribution within the State will be ensured while starting a new college. New colleges and courses can be started in the government or aided sector, depending on the financial resources of the government.
These proposals form part of the fresh set of guidelines issued by the State Higher Education Council. The council has recommended that priority should be given to professional colleges and new generation courses.
Disciplines that have not been fully opened up could be preferred over others. Areas with low density of colleges can be given priority in starting new institutions.
Only aided courses should be sanctioned in government and aided colleges.
Stress on diversification of courses
Strengthening of the public funded system and diversification of courses will be the main emphasis when the government sanctions a new college or course in Kerala from the new academic year.
Maximum geographical distribution within the State will be ensured while starting a new college. New colleges and courses can be started in the government or aided sector, depending on the financial resources of the government.
These proposals form part of the fresh set of guidelines issued by the State Higher Education Council. The council has recommended that priority should be given to professional colleges and new generation courses.
Disciplines that have not been fully opened up could be preferred over others. Areas with low density of colleges can be given priority in starting new institutions.
Only aided courses should be sanctioned in government and aided colleges.
Courses, which are proposed to be run in the self-financing mode or on condition that there will be no additional financial commitment on government,
need not be recommended in the government and aided colleges.
Objective
The objective should be to ensure the separate identity of public and private institutions,
so that there would be no private appropriation of public assets.
Public private partnership mode in government and aided institutions
through self-financing courses need not be permitted
Unaided colleges and courses may be sanctioned selectively.
Unaided colleges and courses may be sanctioned selectively.
The government can give no objection certificate (NOC) for starting new unaided colleges preferably in areas where there is less number of institutions of the same category.
Government control
In the unaided sector, preference may be given to institutions under government control.
Unaided colleges and unaided courses in unaided colleges may be recommended,
subject to certain conditions for ensuring adequate social control
for the promotion of equity and excellence in higher education.
An undertaking from the managements may be insisted on as a condition
precedent for granting NOC for new unaided colleges and courses.
Colleges and courses shall be started only after providing adequate infrastructure, human and physical, as may be certified by the affiliating university.
The procedure of admission will be as decided by the government. Only fees determined by the government from time to time should be collected from the students.
The appointment and service conditions of teachers and non-teaching staff
will be as determined by the government.
An appropriate governance structure that will ensure transparency, efficiency and
social accountability will be instituted in the institutions
as determined by the government or universities from time to time.
Recruitment
The recruitment of teachers and the admission of students in higher education institutions should be governed by the principle of balancing the objectives of
expansion, excellence and equity.
The principles of merit and reservation should be observed
both in the recruitment of teachers and in the admission of the students
in all institutions of higher education,
whether government, aided or unaided.
Only courses approved by the affiliating university shall be conducted.
Details regarding the establishment and governance of the institution,
admission, fees, courses, results, teaching and other staff
and any further information as required by the government or university
shall be published on the web site of the institution.
Temporary Affiliation
The affiliation granted will be temporary and there will be no claim for permanent affiliation.
Adequate time shall be given for academic preparation after granting NOC.
NOC may be given by the government three months ahead of the new academic year
for starting new college or course in 2008-09.
Colleges or courses for which NOC is given afterwards may be permitted
to start them only in 2009-10.
NOC or affiliation will be withdrawn by the government or universities
on violation of the above conditions.
He further alleged that they were abused
He further alleged that they were abused
when they complained to the Thanedar of the Koderma thana.
“The manager did not produce a complaint book even after repeated requests.
We do not have a choice but to register a complaint at PS.
The complaint letter was shot off to the AICTE, on August 2, 2008.
It is alleged that they falsely implicated alok
and assaulted in the lock-up when he was unable to pay up for his release.
TELEGRAPH ‘s OFFICE :
Head Office
ABP Pvt. Limited,6 Prafulla Sarkar Street, Calcutta - 700 001, INDIA,
TELEGRAPH ‘s OFFICE :
Head Office
ABP Pvt. Limited,6 Prafulla Sarkar Street, Calcutta - 700 001, INDIA,
Phone : +91-33-22345374 / 2216600 / 22378000
Fax : +91-33-22253243(advertisement),
+91-33-22253143(corporate).
Letters to the editor should be sent to:
The Telegraph6 Prafulla Sarkar Street, Calcutta - 700001
The Telegraph6 Prafulla Sarkar Street, Calcutta - 700001
Email: ttedit@abpmail.com
Readers in Jharkhand can write to:
Shantiniketan Building, Second FloorMain Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur - 831001
OR Shree Gopal Complex Fourth Floor, Kutchery Road , Ranchi - 834001
Labels: My Articles
posted by Er. Alok Kumar( Alok Sir) @ 8:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home