AICTE

The government is planning to split the regulatory and accreditation roles of the AICTE, which oversees the functioning of engineering and business schools, giving in to a longstanding demand of colleges which have had several run-ins with the body and even alleged that its inspectors demand bribes. 

The government will create an independent accreditation body for colleges, both private and state-run, by merging the National Assessment and Accreditation Council, or NAAC, part of the government body that allocates money to universities, the University Grants Commission (UGC), and the National Board of Accreditation  or  NBA which is part of AICTE, higher education secretary R.P. Agrawal told a team from industry lobby Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, or Ficci, earlier this week.

The head of the All India Council for Technical Education, or AICTE, a controversial regulator of engineering and business schools in India whose inspectors are frequently accused of corruption by many educators, is facing questions over his own dual compensation.

“(The) government is looking at the proposition of merging these two bodies and delinking them from AICTE and UGC,” said Shobha Mishra, joint director at Ficci.
Another member of Ficci’s higher education committee independently confirmed that Agrawal had indicated this at the meeting where the participants included a representative from Manipal University, one of India’s largest private universities. The higher education secretary’s office did not return calls for comment.

“Accreditation will then be made mandatory to ensure quality”, said this member,J.S. Neerav, vice-chairman of the board of Patiala-based Thapar University, who attended the meeting as a representative of colleges. “As far as educational institutions are concerned, we have been saying that accreditation and regulation should be different”.

The move will need changes to existing laws on the regulation of educational institutions and will have to be approved by Parliament.

The university Neerav helps run is owned by Gautam Thapar’s Avantha Group, whose flagship is the listed Crompton Greaves Ltd. Thapar University has deemed university status—it is designated as a university by an order of UGC—and admits 4,500 students to undergraduate, postgraduate and doctorate programmes.

Ficci’s education committee, whose members include the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, and Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai, has long demanded changes in the functioning of AICTE.

Policy changes: A file photo of higher education secretary R.P. Agrawal, who said the government will create a new accreditation body for colleges.

In a draft report in February this year, circulated only to its members, Ficci said the existing regulatory framework constrains the supply of good institutions, excessively regulates existing institutions in the wrong places, and is not conducive to innovations or creativity in higher and technical education.                   It called for the “inspection raj” to be abolished. A final report was later given to the government. Both reports have been reviewed by Mint.

AICTE’s inspectors have been accused of corruption by many educators. Er. alok Kumar hasreported on these charges, citing conversations with a private college.

In April, the government appointed  R.A. Yadav  as its full-time chairman. Yadav is widely seen as having the backing of the politically influential human resource minister Arjun Singh, who has actively pushed for the appointment despite significant concerns about the efficiency and efficacy of AICTE in recent years.

The regulator had had to face criticism from colleges, some of which had accused the body of corrupt practices in granting licences as well as expansion approvals.

A parliamentary standing committee on human resource development, which includes Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat and Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi, had advertised earlier this year in national dailies for suggestions on improving the functioning of AICTE. But despite several colleges sending in their grievances and suggestions, the lawmakers have not met until now to take up the issue.

Yadav too has been under scrutiny for drawing both a salary as the head of AICTE and a pension from the University of Delhi, where he once worked.
Following a Mint story, the ministry said it had started an inquiry.
On 28 March, Mint reported that Yadav had returned much of the pension

Acting on the basis of an unsigned complaint, the chief vigilance officer of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) has confirmed to Mint that it has asked AICTE to respond to the charge that the body’s acting chairman, Ram Avatar Yadav, who is also its vice-chairman, has been claiming a monthly basic salary from AICTE even as he is also drawing a monthly pension from Delhi University.

On the face of it, such dual compensations are not allowed under Indian government employee rules and puts under the microscope, practices at a regulator that is supposed to ensure high standards of educational integrity across thousands of academic institutes.

While the amounts involved are relatively small, the inquiry comes at a time when Yadav is actively lobbying to be made chairman of AICTE and the HRD ministry appears to be close to naming him as head of a body that has been at the receiving end of many complaints of rampant corruption as well as political favouritism in approving or stalling approvals for private institutions, especially during the time Yadav has been at the helm as vice-chairman.

Read: The letter that pointed out the violation.

The latest inquiry stems from an 18 September letter, which points out that Yadav, who draws a basic salary of Rs22,400 a month (in addition to other perks) from AICTE, is also drawing a Rs14,000 monthly pension from Delhi University, from where he took voluntary retirement from a teaching post at the Faculty of Management Studies in 2004. The complaint letter was unsigned but said it was from “an eminent professor from (a) management institute in Maharashtra.”

“Anonymous complaints are not usually entertained but, as this concerned verifiable facts, comments have been sought from the AICTE,” said Sunil Kumar, chief vigilance officer and joint secretary, ministry of human resource development.

Mint has also ascertained that a related file within AICTE, started by the financial officer of the body, concerning the alleged double payments, is currently with Yadav’s office and there are efforts underway to promise that he would pay back the excess amount.

It is unclear how restitution alone would close the matter if it is concluded that laws governing such compensation were violated.

Er.Alok Kumar was able to independently ascertain Yadav’s Delhi University Pension Number as 01190205198.

Yadav didn’t respond to a telephone request made through his office as well as a 7 December email seeking an interview to address the personal allegations against him.

Reached on his mobile phone on Sunday, Yadav first said he was ready to answer all allegations but was currently busy and that he would be ready “in 15 minutes.” Yadav then didn’t answer several calls from Mint after that.

The complaint letter that triggered the inquiry was addressed to Arjun Singh, minister for human resource development, as well as AICTE and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s office. On Sunday, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s office (PMO) said he didn’t know about the letter. It is unclear if the PMO has sought to investigate the issue.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the HRD ministry said he could not confirm or deny Yadav’s imminent appointment as chairman of AICTE, noting that such an appointment will be enventually made by the appointments commitee of the Union cabinet.

A vigilance department clearance would also be routinely required ahead of such appointments being confirmed.

Under current laws, if a retired government servant was to take up a government of India assignment, that person has to disclose pension details to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). This amount is deducted from the salary the retired officer would draw from his new asignment.

“Such people keep drawing their pension but are paid only the difference between the salary earmarked for the posting and the monthly pension that they draw,” said an officer with DoPT on condition of anonymity. The appointees are, however, entitled to all other perks such as car and accomodation that come with the new office. Autonomous bodies generally follow government of India rules on the matter, this officer said.

Late on Sunday, Mint couldn’t independently ascertain whether AICTE, which is funded by the government in addition to raising fees from the institutes it regulates, was aware of the pension issue prior to the 18 September complaint.

AICTE, a relatively low-key organization until Yadav was named vice-chairman, shot into the limelight in 2005 when it withdrew permission granted to the Amity Business School to offer a course in management. Yadav had personally led the AICTE skirmish with Amity, the school told Mint in a recent conversation.

Battles between AICTE and the 6,000 private colleges it regulates in India have escalated since then with several colleges alleging that senior officials of the body, especially regional officers and inspectors, demand bribes in return for approving any increase in seats or courses, or renewing various annual permits.

In a 2 November article in Mint, AICTE member secretary K. Narayana Rao, who is widely credited with trying to clean up the organization since being named to that post less than a year ago, conceded there are corruption complaints against the body.

“Let us be frank on this issue,” he told Mint. “We can’t say that 100% we are genuine.” Rao also said he is trying to reform the approval process for private colleges, which is seen as the main source of alleged corruption at AICTE.

The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which faces accusations of red tape and corruption in regulating private business and engineering colleges, appears to have rapidly approved increases in the number of seats at an institute owned by close relatives of the council’s acting chairman, Ram Avtar Yadav.

No answers: AICTE acting chairman Ram Avtar Yadav.

The Shri Balwant Institute of Technology, located on 10 acres in Sonepat, launched in 2006 with 240 students enrolled for undergraduate courses in engineering, the usual intake of an engineering college.

Just a year later, that number has gone up by 50% to 360.

The college is owned by the Chanderwati Educational and Charitable Trust, whose trustees are Rajesh Yadav, brother-in-law of AICTE’s Yadav; Sushil Yadav, who is the wife of Rajesh Yadav; and a Bhavesh Yadav. Mint could not ascertain the identity of Bhavesh Yadav.

In 2007, Shri Balwant received permission from AICTE to increase engineering seats with 60 new slots for undergraduates and another 60 for post-graduates. A sister institute of the trust was also allowed to admit 60 students for a postgraduate diploma in management in the Shri Balwant Institute of Management. The business school’s building faces the engineering college across a road in Sonepat.

There is no evidence to suggest that Yadav was directly or indirectly involved in AICTE approving the swift increase in seats to Shri Balwant Institute.

Nor is there any suggestion that the approval was improper. 

But, such generous permissions from AICTE are not common.

Indeed, according to AICTE’s website, of the 45 existing private engineering colleges operating in Haryana, only 19 received permission from AICTE to increase seats in 2007. Among them, besides Shri Balwant Institute of Technology, only three colleges received permission for a large number of seat increases. The website did not mention whether all of the 45 colleges had applied for such permission. 

It is unclear whether AICTE has rules in place that allow for an arm’s-length evaluation when it comes to approvals of institutes that are linked to its top officials. Mint couldn’t independently ascertain the processes that were followed in the case of Shri Balwant Institute.

AICTE, a division of the ministry of human resource development, is in charge of approving private institutes in technical and business education.

Amid growing concerns about about AICTE, members of Parliament (MP), who are part of the standing committee on human resource development, have agreed to ask for a public notice to be issued that would seek suggestions on how to improve the functioning of this regulatory body. According to one MP who attended the meeting but did not want to be named, the group of MPs met in New Delhi on Friday and included Rahul Gandhi, a general secretary of the Congress party.

Ishan Institute of Management & Technology sits among several private colleges in this growing New Delhi suburb, a campus of concrete buildings, expansive lawns and fresh-faced students hailing from places such as Kota in Rajasthan and Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh.
Founded in 1995 for 60 students, Ishan has since grown 10-fold, a sign of the demand for higher education, especially in areas such as finance and business, says executive director D.K. Garg. But each time he wants to increase enrolment, Garg says he has battled with the government body in charge of private colleges—the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

The experience of Ishan, which offers a postgraduate diploma in management, highlights one of the key challenges facing a booming private education sector in India and the body tasked with regulating it.

Institutes such as Garg’s use their experience to dub the government as overly meddlesome and corrupt.

AICTE member-secretary K. Narayana Rao says his organization is only trying to make sure private colleges don’t take students and their parents for an expensive ride. (Ishan, for one, charges Rs1.6 lakh for a two-year course.) In an interview, Rao said he could not comment on Ishan specifically, claiming he was not familiar with the case, but said alleged corruption at AICTE is an exception rather than the norm. 

“Let us be frank on this issue,” he says. “We can’t say that 100% we are genuine.” But, Rao says, if he hears 90% of the time that inspections of educational institutes by AICTE-appointed inspectors are going well, he accepts it.

Ishan Institute of Management and Technology dubs AICTE overly meddlesome and corrupt.
In multiple conversations with Mint, that began on 20 August following an email he wrote to a columnist at the paper, Garg claimed that Ishan’s desire to increase enrolment has repeatedly met harassment and delays.

Back in 2005, when he tried to double seats from 120 to 240, Garg says he faced demands for a Rs50 lakh bribe and, specifically, to pay for an expensive dog—Garg can only recall it was a “white, long-haired” breed.

Meanwhile, Ishan has steadily obtained clearances and Garg’s institute has grown. In July 2006, Garg again applied for 120 more seats. He says his initial refusal to pay a bribe resulted in two unannounced inspections. He alleges he knows of other schools where inspectors give advance notice and expect multi-course meals to be waiting.

At Ishan, they first came on 11 January, then again on 3 August. Both times they ended up citing a faculty shortage, says Garg. AICTE requires a teacher-student ratio of 1:15. Ishan, Garg maintains, actually does a lot better, with one teacher for every 12 students.

During the August check, Garg says, the inspectors also noted a shortage of computers.

J'khnd Education Tribunal Act to be effective from August 14,2006

The Jharkhand Government today decided to implement Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act with retrospective effect from August 14, 2006.

The decision was taken at Cabinet meeting here, Cabinet Secretary J B Tubid said adding the government received several complaints about private educational institutions charging high fee which could be addressed by the Tribunal.

Jharkhand favours self-financing courses, watchdog body on standards

The young state, which has to take care of three universities today, almost fully subsidises expenses in respect of higher education courses in these. “We would be relieved if, as suggested by the Central Advisory Board on Education’s committee on financing of higher and technical education we could collect even 20% of the cost as fee from the student,” says a senior education department official in Ranchi. 

The state provides salaries to the staff of the three universities, in line with scales laid down by the University Grants Commission, racking up a bill of around Rs 130 crore a year. This apart, it provides around Rs 35 crore as development grant. It collects a paltry monthly fee of Rs 14 from general category candidates, while incurring a per capita collection charge of around Rs 68, with fees for girls and those in the SC/ST categories being exempt. 

However, things have started changing, with the state encouraging launching of more and more self-financed courses. It has made it clear to the universities that it is not going to finance the recurring expenses of any new course being introduced by them, although a one-time grant to start a course will be provided. “The state has taken a clear decision that its universities could introduce market-driven courses, but they have to be entirely on a self-financing basis,” says education secretary Ashok Kumar Singh. 

In recent years, Ranchi University has introduced 28 such courses. “If these can succeed, I consider that the CABE recommendation of starting with collection of up to 20% (of expenses) as fee is just the beginning,” Mr Singh says. “It should go up to at least 50% of the cost of higher education, with, of course, a safety net provided for socially marginalised people.” 

To ensure that what had happened in Chhattisgarh was not repeated, when around 107 ‘universities,’ many of them just one-room affairs, had got registered, a bill to establish a Jharkhand Education Tribunal was tabled last week. 

“The idea is to keep tabs on education, with a mandate for examining the fee structure, service and the infrastructure being provided by any educational institution, especially the privately-run ones,” said Mr Singh. 

Most agree there is no justification for the state’s current policy. “Whether you are the son of the President of India or of a peon, you are to pay the same fee, which is silly and cannot be allowed,” said a university official.