IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on 15.11.2010
+ W.P.(C) 7248/2010
PROF. M.R. GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Saurabh Prakash, Advocate versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.V.P.Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.J.S.Rupal, Advocate for R-1&2 Mr. Sunil Gupta, Mr.V.K.Rao, Sr. Advs. with Mr.Saket Sikri, Adv. for R-3 to 6 Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-7 Mr.Neeraj Choudhary, Adv. for R-8 Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, Adv. for R-9 Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr.S.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for R-11 Ms. Manisha Singh, Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocates for R-12 Mr.Krishan Mahajan, Adv. for R-13 and 17 Ms.Maninder Acharya, Adv for R-14 & R-15 Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Adv. for R-16 Mr. Anurag Mathur, Adv. for R-18 Mr.Rajinder Dhawan and Mr.B.S. Rana, Advocates for R-19 Mr. Jayant Mehta, Adv. for Maharaja Agrasen College
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment?Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
DIPAK MISRA, CJ
In this public interest litigation the petitioner, a retired professor, as pro bono publico, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) directing respondents 3 to 6, all their teacher members and all other teachers to forthwith start teaching the new syllabi for all the prescribed 13 under-graduate science courses according to the semester system as directed by the University and to complete it before the examinations scheduled from December 6, 2010 onwards;
(b) directing respondents No. 3 to 6 not to continue any strike / dharna and to declare such forms of protests by teachers as illegal and / or unconstitutional; (c) directing respondent No.1 and / or the relevant college managements to implement order dated 12.8.2010 of Respondent No.2 under Statute 11-G(4) of the University of Delhi Act, 1922 and the policy decision of the University of „No Work-No Pay‟ against those teachers who are resorting to strikes, dharnas and / or not teaching the students in semester mode / according to the new syllabi in the concerned science courses;
(d) directing respondent no.1 and / or the relevant college managements to take disciplinary action against the erring teachers who have not given full effect to the implementation of semester system at undergraduate level in the 13 science courses in the current academic year 2010-2011;
(e) directing the UGC to withdraw all funding of those colleges that do not take immediate steps to make their teachers follow the semester system as directed by the Delhi University;
(f) Pass such and further orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. When this matter was listed on 29th October, 2010 after noting certain aspects the following order came to be passed:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case having a different scenario, this court may command the respondents to teach and not to go on strike so that the students can participate in the semester examinations. In the course of hearing, a suggestion was given to Mr.Rao, learned senior counsel for the representing respondents No.3 to 6. Mr.Rao, after obtaining instructions from the competent authority of Delhi University Teachers Association (DUTA), submitted that the strike shall be withdrawn today and the teachers shall start teaching with effect from today. However, it is submitted by Mr.Rao that the University would be well advised to take the teachers into confidence before introducing the semester System. The facet shall be debated after the counter affidavits are filed. As undertaken by Mr.Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 6, no deviation would be tolerated and teachers must join and start teaching from today. In case of any kind of deviancy, this court shall take a serious view of the matter. Call on date fixed.”
3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6, namely, the Secretary, the Joint Secretary and Treasurer of Delhi University Teachers Association (for short „DUTA‟), submitted that the University has imposed the semester system on the teachers in flagrant violation of Sections 23, 30 and 31 of Delhi University Act, 1922 (for short „the 1922 Act‟). It is urged by him that the Vice-Chancellor, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not have exercised the emergency powers bestowed on him under Statute 11G(4) read with the provisions of the 1922 Act as such exercise of power is impermissible. The learned senior counsel submitted that if there is a change in the mode of teaching and introduction of a different system, there has to be deliberation, debate and discussion in the academic council and the executive council and the same could not have been ostracized at the whim and fancy of the Vice-Chancellor by usurpation of emergency power.
It is also contended by him that the power exercised by the Vice-Chancellor tantamounts to colourable exercise of power which the law does not countenance. Quite apart from the above, a submission has been proponed by him that the High Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not issue a writ of mandamus unless it is found that there is violation of any statutory provision. To put it differently, Mr. Gupta would submit that issue of a command does not arise when there is no violation of any kind of law.
4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned standing counsel for the Delhi University and Mr. Saurabh Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whether the Vice-Chancellor does possess the power or not and whether there is violation of procedure in exercise of such power can be a matter of debate and adjudication but when the teachers themselves had not come forward but had taken the law unto themselves by taking recourse to strike and abstaining from teaching, such a plea is unsustainable. It is urged by them that the teachers who have a sacrosanct duty to impart education cannot play with the lives of the students and jeopardize their career however bonafidely and honestly they may harbour the idea that they have a point in law to canvass.
5. At this juncture, we enquired from Mr.Singh, learned senior counsel for the University about certain aspects which we proceed to enumerate. We have been apprised that there are 85 colleges which are affiliated to Delhi University. Out of the said 85 colleges, in 31 colleges in 13 courses the semester system was introduced with effect from 21st July, 2010. After introduction of the said system, a cavil erupted and the teachers belonging to the aforesaid DUTA went on strike. The learned senior counsel submitted that despite best efforts, no solution could be arrived at and thereafter the present public interest litigation has been preferred by a retired professor.
6. Mr.Singh also apprised this Court that out of 31 colleges, 21 colleges have communicated their confirmation to the University that they are following the semester system and the teachers teaching therein are teaching as per the semester system and they have not taken path to any kind of deviancy after the order dated 29th October, 2010.
7. Be it noted, a student association has also filed another public interest litigation forming the subject matter of WP(C) No. 7658/2010 highlighting that the students are interested to be imparted teaching and they do not want that their careers to be destroyed by non-imparting of teaching which would eventually result in non-appearance in the examination.
8. At this juncture, it was thought apt to enquire from the other respondents about the steps taken by them. Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, learned counsel for respondent No.9, Bhaskaracharya College of Applied Sciences, stated that the said College has already introduced the semester system and all teachers are teaching as per the said semester method. Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.11, Deshbandhu College, also echoed what Dr. Aurobindo Ghose has stated. Ms. Manisha Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.12, namely, Gargi College, also submitted that the College has no problem for imparting education in the semester system and all the teachers are cooperating. Mr. Krishan Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.13, Hindu College, submitted that barring the stream of zoology, in all other branches the semester system is being followed. The learned counsel apprised us that the teachers in the department of zoology are not following the semester system but the annual system as a result of which there is a discordant note. As far as respondent No.14, Miranda House, is concerned, it is put forth by Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned counsel that barring ten teachers in English, one in zoology and three in physics, all other teachers are teaching as per the semester method. It is further urged by her that as far as Respondent No.15, namely, Motilal Nehru College is concerned the teachers have given an undertaking that they will teach as per the ordinance mode. As far as Respondent No.16 Rajdhani College is concerned, we have been apprised by Ms.Beenashaw Soni, learned counsel that majority of the teachers in the said college are not following the semester system. So far as Respondent No.17, Ramjas College, is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Krishan Mahajan, learned counsel that all the teachers are imparting education in the semester mode and there is no difficulty on that score. Similar is the submission of Mr.Anurag Mathur, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.18, namely, Shivaji College. As far as Respondent No.19 Sri Aurobindo College is concerned, barring chemistry and zoology, all the teachers are imparting education as per the semester method.
9. We have been apprised by Mr.Singh and Mr.Rupal, learned counsel for the University, that Kirori Mal College has not implemented the semester mode.
10. At this stage, we may also take note of one aspect that in the first year of admission in the Delhi University, 55000 students have taken admission out of which in science faculties in which semester system has been introduced, 7800 students are involved. It is contended by Mr.Singh and Mr. Rupal that all the students have filled up the forms for being taught in the semester mode. Quite apart from the above, it is put forth by them that barring a few teachers who are imparting teaching to hardly a thousand students, all other teachers are cooperating.
11. Regard being had to the totality of circumstances, we are inclined to think that three questions, namely, whether this Court at this juncture should debate on the validity of the introduction of the semester system on the anvil of the 1922 Act as vehemently urged by Mr.Gupta or deal with the matter as an interim measure to see that the students are taught and not suffer from any kind of difficulty and not waste time, for time is the most precious thing in a man‟s life and more precious in the life of a student; secondly, whether a writ of mandamus can be issued or not, and thirdly, whether the teachers can go on strike and not teach in the education system as introduced by the University and claim their salary, emerge for consideration.
12. As far as the first aspect is concerned, the legal debate can be held, as we are inclined to think, at a later stage. The teachers by and large, as we perceive, are following the semester system and the students are being taught. Though Mr. Gupta being instructed by some teachers had to make an enormous complaint that there is no possibility of buzzing an inch from the stand that they have to teach in the annual mode and not by the semester system, yet teaching is not a war field where one fights for inches when one performs one‟s duty in all sacrosanctity towards the students. Thus, the issue has to be deferred despite the submissions of Mr.Gupta with immense vehemence on behalf of DUTA which he represents.
13. Presently, we shall proceed to deal with the second facet. It has to be remembered that in a democratic body polity, governance is the primary factor. Governance in the field of education is the genesis of good governance in a democracy where Rule of Law prevails. The largest democracy is known for its governance by Rule of Law. From the ancient days, this country had respected education and in fact almost 2300 years back, Kautilya had said, “parents who do not send their children to school to get education deserve to be punished by the king”. In the first decade of twenty-first century, it is inconceivable that the teachers should take law unto their own hands and not allow the students to be taught in the mode prescribed by the University, a statutory authority, on the foundation that they have a cavil in law with the University for introduction of the semester system. True it is, they are entitled to file a substantive writ petition questioning the introduction of the semester system but it is unthinkable that they can take the law unto themselves and proclaim from the roof top “We are the law”. It is absolutely impermissible in a country governed by law. Quite apart from the above, it is apt to note that the respondent association has not called in question the constitutional validity of the Ordinance or any illegality by filing a petition on its own.
14. It is worth remembering that civilization, culture, economic growth, peace and harmony flow from good education. Education fosters an attitude in a person as a consequence of which he becomes disciplined, civilized and a man of compassion. A true teacher has the potentiality to influence the career and the character of a student and his influence continues for long. Albert Einstein had said “it is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge”. The imparting of training is also dependent upon the individual chemistry and personal patience. The capacity of a teacher can gradually change a student with slow osmosis. A teacher with experience has the requisite knowledge, both theoretical and practical. One can have experience only when he undergoes it. An experience is basically a harvest of knowledge and hence, it has been said that „practice is the supreme teacher‟. This being the role of the teacher, the question that arises for consideration is whether they can take recourse to strike and refuse to teach. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Vs. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. And Another, (2007) 4 SCC 699, wherein their Lordships expressed the view that the persisting with illegal strike, unlawfully threatening others and preventing others from rejoining and receiving any pay warrants punishment.
15. In Dr. P.G. Najpandey Vs. State of M.P. and Others, AIR 2008 MP 55 in paragraph 11 and 12 it has been held as under: “11. It should be borne in mind that in the name of demonstration or protestation, the life in a civilized society cannot be paralyzed, in the name of legitimate exercise of ones right to protest the fundamental right of others cannot be scuttled. In a democratic polity the fundamental right of each citizen is sacrosanct. The collective cannot destroy the same. No one, however big he may be should foster a misgiving that he can create a tremor in the fundamental rights of others and tremble the spine of the members of the society at large by forming a group or a political party. The splendor of right to move the glory to live with dignity by carrying out a lawful profession or calling cannot be abridged in the name of mass protest or mass demonstration. The collective protest cannot be allowed to take the shape of collective passion to project a fractured mind thereby creating a dent in the concept of 'Rule of law' and bringing in a concavity in the constitutional philosophy which sings the song of highly cherished fundamental rights of millions of people. Be it noted the rights of others cannot be crucified at the fanciful pedestal of a group or a party and by no stretch of imagination it can be guillotined in a cavalier fashion from any pupil. The law of this country does not so countenance. 12. The great society gets further nurtured and fostered by the high ideals of Rule of Law'. The essentiality of' Rule of Law' cannot be allowed to be sent to the sky in a huge balloon to burst. The serenity of body polity cannot be permitted to be destroyed in the name of political pulse making a citizen 'A traveler betwixt the life and death'. The law should be allowed to reign supreme with the splendid vision, in its glorious resplendence.”
16. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2009) 5 SCC 212, wherein the Apex Court decried the mass destruction due to protests and how the liability has to be fixed. True, the same has been rendered in a different context but we are referring to the same how the protest can be totally unconstitutional and damaging to the society. In this context, we may also refer with profit to a passage from Lord Denning as it finds place in his book „What next in the Law‟:
“2. Recourse to law – In order to ensure this recourse, it is important that the law itself should provide adequate and efficient remedies for abuse or misuse of power from whatever quarter it may come. No matter who it is – who is guilty of the abuse or misuse. Be it government, national or local. Be it trade unions. Be it the press. Be it management. Be it labour. Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy.”
17. In this regard, we may fruitfully refer to the order dated 24th September, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 9821/2009 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which is as follows:
“17. Regard being had to the aforesaid facets, we, as advised at present, observe that the Professors, the Lecturers, the Teachers and the non-teaching staff may have a right in law to agitate their grievance in a Court of Law. They may be entitled to the revised pay-scale as they claim. But the sixty-four thousand million dollar question is whether the mode and method adopted by them is justified? Can the Professors, Lecturers, Teachers and non-teaching staff paralyze the education system in a State, as a consequence of which the students are deprived of teaching, lose their time, cannot undertake examination and envision only darkness in future? When a student takes admission in a college or university it is expected that he shall be imparted education. In the days of yore, Chankya commanded that the parents deserve punishment if they do not send their children for getting education. The same was the philosophy in the ancient Greece. But today how does want conceive that the teachers will be on the streets to get their monetary claim by paralyzing the system of education? How can one conceive that they would stand in circles and block the road to create an impediment in the day-to-day movement of the life of the citizen? How can one accept that students would suffer because of the teachers no holding examination and doing their duties? Strike is definitely not the way and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is their fundamental or legal right.”
18. It is worth noting that in certain countries a single day absence by way of strike from teaching is regarded as illegal and not treated as a legal protest. But in the case at hand, the Professors and teachers have gone on strike to cripple the education system.
19. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to think certain directions are to be issued so that the education system in Delhi University, in respect of the students who have undertaken to prosecute their studies through semester system, do not fall into peril. This Court has a role of loco parentis in a case of this nature.
20. Be it noted, the first semester examination has been scheduled to be held on 6th December, 2010. On a query being made from Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the University, whether the students should be well prepared to appear, he fairly stated that there shall be some difficulty and the Delhi University has no objection to defer the examination by an appropriate span of time so that the students can properly be taught and appear in the examination. Mr.Singh also further conceded that the practical examination shall also be deferred as the same is scheduled to commence 23rd November, 2010.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we proceed to issue following directions:
i) The teachers serving in all 31 colleges, out of which in 13 colleges wherein semester system has been introduced as have been identified by the University shall teach in the semester mode and not deviate from the same as most of the colleges have followed it and students have no objection as submitted by Mr. S.N. Singh, learned counsel representing the students union in WP(C) No. 7658/2010.
ii) The colleges which are facing difficulty in certain subjects may bring it to the notice of the University within three days so that the University shall dwell upon the problem, address to it with utmost objectivity and solve it so that the students would not face any kind of difficulty from being imparted education in the requisite semester method.
iii) If any teacher does not cooperate in teaching as per the semester system, it would be treated as absenteeism and accordingly steps shall be taken by the management and the University would be at liberty to make alternate arrangement, for the simon pure reason education cannot be thrown to the Pacific ocean at the caprice of anyone.
iv) The absenteeism shall not be counted towards leave.
v) The deferment of the examination by the University shall be in consultation with all the colleges and the University Grants Commission.
vi) The University shall constitute a three member Committee to address the core issue as we are desirous that problem of such a nature should be amiably and amicably solved. Mr. Singh fairly stated that for the constitution of the Committee, they will request the UGC to nominate a reputed educationist. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the UGC fairly stated that if the University will send the request the UGC shall nominate a reputed educationist as a member of the Committee. vii) The Committee shall go into all the facets as well as analyze arena for holding the examination at a proper time and in an appropriate manner.
22. Before parting with the aforesaid directions, Mr. Gupta submitted that as this Court has taken up the issue as it has immense impact on education, the things of the past should be given a decent burial. We appreciate the said submission. To put it differently, what Mr.Gupta has urged is that the teachers who had not cooperated or taught in the past should not be deprived of their salary. If the said teachers start teaching as per the semester system from 16.11.2010, as Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the University, concedes, they shall be paid their salary inclusive of arrears.
23. Let the matter be set out for final disposal on 13th December, 2010 at 2:15 PM for further hearing.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 15, 2010 MANMOHAN, J
Pk/dk
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
DEEPAK PENTAL EARNS HIS PLACE IN HISTORY
During the golden period of Spain Miquel de Cervantes (1556-1615) created a masterpiece of European literature,’ Don Quixote’, It was the story of a funny fictional character, who styled himself as a knight errant Don Quixote, and who had convinced himself that he was destined to vanquish all (imagined)evil enemies. In his hilarious adventures he is encouraged and egged on by his 'squire' Sancho Panza. This Don tilts against windmills because Panza had convinced him that they were giant evils. In this monumental epic both of them bring a lot of ridicule upon themselves with their amusing misadventures and crazy imagery.
The university community sees shades of Quixote-Panza combo in some of the recent acts of VC-Registrar duo. Any advice for sagacity, any demand for dialogue and debate, any criticism of violations of university statutes or of past established practices was seen as emanating from evil carnates; that is, DUTA or 'self appointed teacher activists'. Like Quixote, Deepak Pental threw his knightly lances at the evil spirits. He shot out 20 letters and orders to college principals and GBs. They were mostly treated with quiet contempt they deserved. Teachers were not deterred.
The similarity with the epic parody does not end here. This epic influenced European literature for the next 300 years. Pental has also ensured his place in future history. Many a management institutes will surely have in their curricula text book the case studies of ' "how not to run an organization" or "how not to introduce a reform ": a case study of semester introduction in DU”. Dr Deepak Pental not only failed as a vice chancellor but also as the CEO of DU he thought he actually was.
The purpose of this piece is not to repeat the often repeated arguments of multiple violations of lawfully laid down procedures by the VC. The purpose is to lament the loss of excellent opportunity to introduce innovations and interdisciplinary in curricula and teaching methods, make evaluation processes not a test of rote memory but of real knowledge, encouraging research and, above all, devising ways and means through which 'quality' could be introduced to mammoth the number of undergraduate students. Friends, if Dr Pental and the university community introspect, the failures are many and monumental. First is that teachers have been tarred with black brush as opposing any or all reform. The fact is that the teachers have been in the forefront of all positive changes in structures and syllabi in DU during the last few decades. Second is the impression created by Pental that he is under force introducing semester scheme at the behest of the union MHRD. That the university spent over Rs 90 lakhs of public money over huge ads in prominent news papers and over court cases, and yet failed every time and everywhere, has further confirmed this impression. Third, the 13 science courses in which the VC sought to implement an ill conceived half baked semester based syllabi cover only about 12%of students’ strength in the formal stream. Pental had always boasted that he would introduce semester in all the courses, in all the faculties-a boast which has fallen flat on its face. Even in sciences in over 75% cases teaching is being done in the annual scheme despite farcical claims by some subCEOs(read principals).The process of starting Pental's dream semester project has not yet even started in Arts, Humanities, Mathematics, Social Sciences, Commerce and Business departments which cover over 85% of the students. Also the semester based science courses, somehow assembled by the VC in a hurry, betray no evidence of interdisciplinarity or innovation. The two exams per year instead of one cannot in itself be a positive reform. The actual teaching days have been reduced so as to provide for two exams and preparatory holidays.
The incoming new administration of DU, it is hoped, will learn from these mistakes. An era of the much needed reforms will start with the active help of all concerned. The processes to consult, confer, discuss, debate, and, argue with permanent stake holders- students and teachers, and will yield positive results. The top down approach is bound to fail.
October 10, 2010
INDER KAPAHY
Dept.of Physics
KM College,DU.
9810037679
imkkmc@gmail.com
The university community sees shades of Quixote-Panza combo in some of the recent acts of VC-Registrar duo. Any advice for sagacity, any demand for dialogue and debate, any criticism of violations of university statutes or of past established practices was seen as emanating from evil carnates; that is, DUTA or 'self appointed teacher activists'. Like Quixote, Deepak Pental threw his knightly lances at the evil spirits. He shot out 20 letters and orders to college principals and GBs. They were mostly treated with quiet contempt they deserved. Teachers were not deterred.
The similarity with the epic parody does not end here. This epic influenced European literature for the next 300 years. Pental has also ensured his place in future history. Many a management institutes will surely have in their curricula text book the case studies of ' "how not to run an organization" or "how not to introduce a reform ": a case study of semester introduction in DU”. Dr Deepak Pental not only failed as a vice chancellor but also as the CEO of DU he thought he actually was.
The purpose of this piece is not to repeat the often repeated arguments of multiple violations of lawfully laid down procedures by the VC. The purpose is to lament the loss of excellent opportunity to introduce innovations and interdisciplinary in curricula and teaching methods, make evaluation processes not a test of rote memory but of real knowledge, encouraging research and, above all, devising ways and means through which 'quality' could be introduced to mammoth the number of undergraduate students. Friends, if Dr Pental and the university community introspect, the failures are many and monumental. First is that teachers have been tarred with black brush as opposing any or all reform. The fact is that the teachers have been in the forefront of all positive changes in structures and syllabi in DU during the last few decades. Second is the impression created by Pental that he is under force introducing semester scheme at the behest of the union MHRD. That the university spent over Rs 90 lakhs of public money over huge ads in prominent news papers and over court cases, and yet failed every time and everywhere, has further confirmed this impression. Third, the 13 science courses in which the VC sought to implement an ill conceived half baked semester based syllabi cover only about 12%of students’ strength in the formal stream. Pental had always boasted that he would introduce semester in all the courses, in all the faculties-a boast which has fallen flat on its face. Even in sciences in over 75% cases teaching is being done in the annual scheme despite farcical claims by some subCEOs(read principals).The process of starting Pental's dream semester project has not yet even started in Arts, Humanities, Mathematics, Social Sciences, Commerce and Business departments which cover over 85% of the students. Also the semester based science courses, somehow assembled by the VC in a hurry, betray no evidence of interdisciplinarity or innovation. The two exams per year instead of one cannot in itself be a positive reform. The actual teaching days have been reduced so as to provide for two exams and preparatory holidays.
The incoming new administration of DU, it is hoped, will learn from these mistakes. An era of the much needed reforms will start with the active help of all concerned. The processes to consult, confer, discuss, debate, and, argue with permanent stake holders- students and teachers, and will yield positive results. The top down approach is bound to fail.
October 10, 2010
INDER KAPAHY
Dept.of Physics
KM College,DU.
9810037679
imkkmc@gmail.com
A Critique : Prof. S C PANCHOLI REPORT ON SCRAP SALE OF GAMMA CELL
(An attempt to hide truth)
As was suspected the Prof. S.C. Pancholi ‘enquiry’ report on the sale of gamma cell 220 as scrap by the chemistry department, DU, is nothing but an attempt not to expose the truth behind this strange sale. The report does not recognize the group of persons responsible for the scrap sale and does not fix responsibilities. It blames the entire chemistry department when it concludes “it appears to be a collective failure of the department of chemistry, Delhi University.”
How does the appearance become a conclusion in a formal report! Well informed circles in Delhi University had always emphasized that the enquiry committee comprises persons handpicked by the Vice-chancellor and the then Head of the chemistry department, Prof. V.S. Parmar. That is why the committee has not even examined the role of the Vice chancellor and the pro Vice chancellor who are directly connected with the sale as the ‘competent’ approving authorities. The scrap dealer, Sh. Harcharan Singh, resident of D2/80 Mayapuri, New Delhi- 110064, was also not examined lest he should reveal some uncomfortable truths. The entire chemistry department has been blamed without any logic.
The fact, not properly examined by the enquiry committee, is that the ‘write off’ committee and the ‘disposal’ committee constituted by the Department of Chemistry, were only carrying out the orders to dispose off the unserviceable/obsolete items in record time without due deliberation and care. No attempt was made by the enquiry committee to recognize these invisible givers of orders. The note initiated by the then HOD, Prof. V.S. Parmar, on 20th January 2010 reveals the whole story of criminal neglect to please the bosses. On 20th January 2010, prof. V.S. Parmar moved an official note stating, inter-alia, “I have consulted some of my colleagues in the department who have given their opinion that the old and obsolete items of equipments should be disposed off as early as possible, in particular because one block has to demolished immediately for the construction of new T.R. Sheshadri block of the department.” On the same one page note teachers of the department have signed their approval with the words “we strongly support that all the obsolete items stored in several rooms and laboratories of the department be disposed off ‘as requested by our HOD, as soon as possible’.”(Emphasis added) also on the same page a request was made to approve a committee of 8 professors under Prof. V.S. Parmar to dispose off the obsolete/junk items. Both V.C. (on 1st February 2010) and proV.C. (On 4th February 2010) approved of the suggestions mooted by the then HOD. That the V.C. signed the documents even before the proV.C., establishes as to who is actually behind all this sordid drama. Why was Dr Deepak Pental not questioned by the enquiry committee ?
It is evident from this one page note initiated by the then HOD that no formal meeting of the Department of Chemistry was convened to constitute ‘write off’ or ‘disposal’ committees. It was all informal- ‘as requested by the HOD’, kind of informality. In the absence of examination of the VC and the proVC by the committee it is difficult to establish or deny that both of them were in league to quickly dispose off the obsolete item including the 4 ton gamma cell. The committee’s failure to examine the VC and proVC is a serious violation of the proper procedure. In a single meeting on 10th February 2010 of the disposal committee, which was the same as the write off committee with the addition of one each representative of the engineering department and internal audit, it was decided to dispose off all ‘obsolete items’ through public auction. There is no indication of any scrutiny of the list of items which also included the gamma cell.
It is a criminal neglect of procedure by the committee not to examine the scrap dealer to whom the entire ‘kabad(!)’ was sold. Perusal of documents reveals a bizarre fact. The 4 ton gamma cell (220), with pencils of radioactive cobalt-60, was sold to the kabadi for Re. 1. The scrap dealer would have revealed as to how the disposal price of this gigantic size machine was fixed at Re. 1. How was the gamma cell decommissioned? What was the role of the three ‘Radiological Safety Officers (RSOs)’ – not examined again by the committee- in advising security measures while dismantling the machine? Why was the Dean of Science Faculty included in he Write off and Disposal committees and what role did he play? All these questions have been left unattended.
The use of word ‘lapse’ by the enquiry committee for criminal neglect of required and mandated safeguards is revolting. Mishandling of gamma cell by the chemistry department and its dismantling and scrap sale to a kabadi without radiological safety procedures has been described merely as ‘an initial but significant lapse’. The initiation to write off the gamma cell without adequate knowledge about the equipment has also been described as ‘another lapse’. Failure of the write off committee to obtain the technical information of gamma cell is also ‘another lapse’.
The enquiry committee emphasizes that after the retirement of prof. B.K. Sharma in 1993 – he was the only professor conducting research associated with the gamma cell- the gamma cell was transferred on records to M.Sc. Physical Chemistry lab but no faculty member was made responsible for its use. Yet the committee is trying to indirectly and unfairly put blame on Prof. Rita Kakkar for writing off the gamma cell. She is a theoretical chemist having nothing to do with the gamma cell experimentation. The committee has also come to a bizarre conclusion: “as she was not the user of the gamma cell, she should have ascertained the technical details of the gamma cell before initiating the write off of this equipment.” It is a matter of investigation why she recommended writing off of the gamma cell when she had nothing to do with it. Was she coerced/ persuaded to do so? Also it is unbelievable that the HOD, chairman of the write off and disposal committee, was not aware of the radioactive contents of the gamma cell. The very word ‘gamma’ denotes radioactive emission. Also the room housing the cell had always had the radioactive emission danger sign prominently displayed on the door. Feigning of ignorance about radioactive nature of the cell cannot be accepted. It is evident that the whole Chemistry Department was under pressure of higher authorities to get rid of the junk post haste.
The enquiry committee has completely ignored the non-observance of AERB mandated safety guidelines on the use of gamma cell by the chemistry department. When the University of Delhi gave application, seeking permission of the AERB in January 1970 for the use of radioactive gamma cell 220, the AERB clearly stated ‘item number 14 of the above application contains the “safety instruction” in the form of “terms and condition” for the safe handling of the gamma cell 220.’ Yet the enquiry committee has come to the completely erroneous conclusion that ‘lack of communication between the chemistry department, DU and the AERB led to the auction of AECRL 220 gamma cell containing radioactive cobalt- 60 sources.’
To conclude, some technical details. The enquiry committee concludes that though the initial radioactivity of gamma cell in July 1969 was 4373 curie (Ci) it was reduced to 20.6 Ci in March 2010. Exact calculation shows that the residual activity was 15% more, that is, 23.9 Ci. Be that as it may. 1 Ci in itself is a gigantic radioactivity. It amounts to 37 billion radioactive decays per second. And gamma decays are particularly dangerous as they are long penetrating. It is not safe for human bodies to be exposed to even a millionth part of a curie. The radioactive exposure caused by the DU through scrap sale to a Mayapuri kabadi was thousands of times greater than the human tolerance limit. It has already resulted into one death and many people in critical conditions. Many may suffer in future. The scientific research has suffered in DU by the AERB ban on the use of radioactive material in any manner and for whatever purpose in the laboratories of DU.
It is pertinent to comment that the University of Delhi would not have suffered the indignity and disrepute that it did if the VC had not developed and encouraged the culture of CEOisation of decision making process. The VC has become the chief CEO of DU and heads have become junior CEO’s . Instead of disposing of junk material through EC sponsored committees ,the chemistry department decided to sell it on their own under pressure of the VC . If Dr Deepak Pental runs away from his responsibility it will have serious disastrous consequences for the conduct of research in science departments of DU.
The Prof. S.C. Pancholi committee report is full of inanities and lacks focus. Instead of coming to logical conclusions it only gives ‘opinions’. It comes to the conclusion that nobody is responsible; everybody is responsible. Criminal acts of neglects are described as lapses (which are nothing but brief failure of concentration, memory or judgment) the university must reject the whitewashing report if it has to restore its lost credibility. An independent actionable judicial enquiry must be instituted.
Inder Kapahy 3 October 2010
Dept of Physics
K M College DU
9810037679
imkkmc@gmail.com
As was suspected the Prof. S.C. Pancholi ‘enquiry’ report on the sale of gamma cell 220 as scrap by the chemistry department, DU, is nothing but an attempt not to expose the truth behind this strange sale. The report does not recognize the group of persons responsible for the scrap sale and does not fix responsibilities. It blames the entire chemistry department when it concludes “it appears to be a collective failure of the department of chemistry, Delhi University.”
How does the appearance become a conclusion in a formal report! Well informed circles in Delhi University had always emphasized that the enquiry committee comprises persons handpicked by the Vice-chancellor and the then Head of the chemistry department, Prof. V.S. Parmar. That is why the committee has not even examined the role of the Vice chancellor and the pro Vice chancellor who are directly connected with the sale as the ‘competent’ approving authorities. The scrap dealer, Sh. Harcharan Singh, resident of D2/80 Mayapuri, New Delhi- 110064, was also not examined lest he should reveal some uncomfortable truths. The entire chemistry department has been blamed without any logic.
The fact, not properly examined by the enquiry committee, is that the ‘write off’ committee and the ‘disposal’ committee constituted by the Department of Chemistry, were only carrying out the orders to dispose off the unserviceable/obsolete items in record time without due deliberation and care. No attempt was made by the enquiry committee to recognize these invisible givers of orders. The note initiated by the then HOD, Prof. V.S. Parmar, on 20th January 2010 reveals the whole story of criminal neglect to please the bosses. On 20th January 2010, prof. V.S. Parmar moved an official note stating, inter-alia, “I have consulted some of my colleagues in the department who have given their opinion that the old and obsolete items of equipments should be disposed off as early as possible, in particular because one block has to demolished immediately for the construction of new T.R. Sheshadri block of the department.” On the same one page note teachers of the department have signed their approval with the words “we strongly support that all the obsolete items stored in several rooms and laboratories of the department be disposed off ‘as requested by our HOD, as soon as possible’.”(Emphasis added) also on the same page a request was made to approve a committee of 8 professors under Prof. V.S. Parmar to dispose off the obsolete/junk items. Both V.C. (on 1st February 2010) and proV.C. (On 4th February 2010) approved of the suggestions mooted by the then HOD. That the V.C. signed the documents even before the proV.C., establishes as to who is actually behind all this sordid drama. Why was Dr Deepak Pental not questioned by the enquiry committee ?
It is evident from this one page note initiated by the then HOD that no formal meeting of the Department of Chemistry was convened to constitute ‘write off’ or ‘disposal’ committees. It was all informal- ‘as requested by the HOD’, kind of informality. In the absence of examination of the VC and the proVC by the committee it is difficult to establish or deny that both of them were in league to quickly dispose off the obsolete item including the 4 ton gamma cell. The committee’s failure to examine the VC and proVC is a serious violation of the proper procedure. In a single meeting on 10th February 2010 of the disposal committee, which was the same as the write off committee with the addition of one each representative of the engineering department and internal audit, it was decided to dispose off all ‘obsolete items’ through public auction. There is no indication of any scrutiny of the list of items which also included the gamma cell.
It is a criminal neglect of procedure by the committee not to examine the scrap dealer to whom the entire ‘kabad(!)’ was sold. Perusal of documents reveals a bizarre fact. The 4 ton gamma cell (220), with pencils of radioactive cobalt-60, was sold to the kabadi for Re. 1. The scrap dealer would have revealed as to how the disposal price of this gigantic size machine was fixed at Re. 1. How was the gamma cell decommissioned? What was the role of the three ‘Radiological Safety Officers (RSOs)’ – not examined again by the committee- in advising security measures while dismantling the machine? Why was the Dean of Science Faculty included in he Write off and Disposal committees and what role did he play? All these questions have been left unattended.
The use of word ‘lapse’ by the enquiry committee for criminal neglect of required and mandated safeguards is revolting. Mishandling of gamma cell by the chemistry department and its dismantling and scrap sale to a kabadi without radiological safety procedures has been described merely as ‘an initial but significant lapse’. The initiation to write off the gamma cell without adequate knowledge about the equipment has also been described as ‘another lapse’. Failure of the write off committee to obtain the technical information of gamma cell is also ‘another lapse’.
The enquiry committee emphasizes that after the retirement of prof. B.K. Sharma in 1993 – he was the only professor conducting research associated with the gamma cell- the gamma cell was transferred on records to M.Sc. Physical Chemistry lab but no faculty member was made responsible for its use. Yet the committee is trying to indirectly and unfairly put blame on Prof. Rita Kakkar for writing off the gamma cell. She is a theoretical chemist having nothing to do with the gamma cell experimentation. The committee has also come to a bizarre conclusion: “as she was not the user of the gamma cell, she should have ascertained the technical details of the gamma cell before initiating the write off of this equipment.” It is a matter of investigation why she recommended writing off of the gamma cell when she had nothing to do with it. Was she coerced/ persuaded to do so? Also it is unbelievable that the HOD, chairman of the write off and disposal committee, was not aware of the radioactive contents of the gamma cell. The very word ‘gamma’ denotes radioactive emission. Also the room housing the cell had always had the radioactive emission danger sign prominently displayed on the door. Feigning of ignorance about radioactive nature of the cell cannot be accepted. It is evident that the whole Chemistry Department was under pressure of higher authorities to get rid of the junk post haste.
The enquiry committee has completely ignored the non-observance of AERB mandated safety guidelines on the use of gamma cell by the chemistry department. When the University of Delhi gave application, seeking permission of the AERB in January 1970 for the use of radioactive gamma cell 220, the AERB clearly stated ‘item number 14 of the above application contains the “safety instruction” in the form of “terms and condition” for the safe handling of the gamma cell 220.’ Yet the enquiry committee has come to the completely erroneous conclusion that ‘lack of communication between the chemistry department, DU and the AERB led to the auction of AECRL 220 gamma cell containing radioactive cobalt- 60 sources.’
To conclude, some technical details. The enquiry committee concludes that though the initial radioactivity of gamma cell in July 1969 was 4373 curie (Ci) it was reduced to 20.6 Ci in March 2010. Exact calculation shows that the residual activity was 15% more, that is, 23.9 Ci. Be that as it may. 1 Ci in itself is a gigantic radioactivity. It amounts to 37 billion radioactive decays per second. And gamma decays are particularly dangerous as they are long penetrating. It is not safe for human bodies to be exposed to even a millionth part of a curie. The radioactive exposure caused by the DU through scrap sale to a Mayapuri kabadi was thousands of times greater than the human tolerance limit. It has already resulted into one death and many people in critical conditions. Many may suffer in future. The scientific research has suffered in DU by the AERB ban on the use of radioactive material in any manner and for whatever purpose in the laboratories of DU.
It is pertinent to comment that the University of Delhi would not have suffered the indignity and disrepute that it did if the VC had not developed and encouraged the culture of CEOisation of decision making process. The VC has become the chief CEO of DU and heads have become junior CEO’s . Instead of disposing of junk material through EC sponsored committees ,the chemistry department decided to sell it on their own under pressure of the VC . If Dr Deepak Pental runs away from his responsibility it will have serious disastrous consequences for the conduct of research in science departments of DU.
The Prof. S.C. Pancholi committee report is full of inanities and lacks focus. Instead of coming to logical conclusions it only gives ‘opinions’. It comes to the conclusion that nobody is responsible; everybody is responsible. Criminal acts of neglects are described as lapses (which are nothing but brief failure of concentration, memory or judgment) the university must reject the whitewashing report if it has to restore its lost credibility. An independent actionable judicial enquiry must be instituted.
Inder Kapahy 3 October 2010
Dept of Physics
K M College DU
9810037679
imkkmc@gmail.com
REFORMS IN DU REQUIRE CONSENSUS (A response to Prof. Deepk Pental’s article)
The former Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University, Dr. Deepak Pental, has worded and structured his article ‘Our musty ivory tower’ (I.E. 16 September, 2010) to draw the following three conclusions: 1) In 1970s began the decline of DU; and the mindset of teachers ‘cocooned’ in 1970s is impeding the upward leap planned by the university establishment; 2) teachers association and some teacher activists oppose any and all constructive reforms in academic structures and syllabi; 3) semester system is the panacea for removing all the ailments of our undergraduate and postgraduate system of university education.
None of these three conclusions are based on objective facts; the author has not revealed his dialectical reasoning for arriving at these conclusions. And Pental does not explain an obvious contradiction in his article when he asserts that “DU is the top Indian University in a recent survey of Asian Universities”. The survey result contradicts his conclusions.
That Pental is blaming 1970s for the present ills of our university system betrays the symptoms that have colonized the collective mind of the present day educational establishment. 1970s was the period of collegiate expansion in DU, shifting of B.Sc. (Hons) courses to colleges, establishing and strengthening of democratic institutions in decision making, and inclusion and expansion of elected teachers representatives in the Statutory authorities like the DU Executive Council and the Academic Council. Mid’90s saw the emergence of the concepts of globalization, marketization and commercialization of higher education. It become fashionable, what was earlier blasphemous, to assert that the state should gradually withdraw from funding higher education. One very acclaimed Union Minister even placed higher education in the basket of non-merit goods. Foreign Universities Bill, Hospitals and Other Institutions Bill (to curb democratic space in university systems), Accreditation and Assessment Bill (to implement differentiated funding formulae according to ‘stars’ rating of the institutions) become the priority areas for state legislation. One should thank the culture of democracy imbibed in the 70s for halting the devastating march of commercial and market interests to capture our higher education systems. One should remember that even with state funding only 11% of eligible age group (17 to 25 years) receive higher education. Does Pental grudge even this small percentage reaching the portals of colleges? Or does he want students to rush towards private and foreign universities?
Pental is trying to cover his own multiple failures by accusing teachers and teachers’ association for all attempts to reform structures and revise and update syllabi. Most courses in sciences, humanities and social sciences had been revised often after every 6 to 7 years with the full involvement of university departments and college teachers without any problem. B.Sc. (Hons) courses in Physics and Chemistry, for example, have changed 6 times since 1970 including restructuring to make each of them an integrated course. Never any teacher association or ‘activist’ opposed these changes. It is only when the previous Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Deepak Nayyar, began the process of changing structures without involving teachers that the opposition by general teachers, not only by ‘self anointed activists’, also began. Under Deepak Nayyar structures of B.Sc. Programs were amended, without consulting and involving teachers through what were styled as ‘empowered committees’, with disastrous consequences. All the apprehensions articulated by teacher were proven true to haunt the B.Sc. Programs which have become immensely unpopular.
The manner in which Dr. Deepak Pental sought to introduce semester system and semester-based syllabi in sciences is too bizarre for words. It is becoming increasingly clear now that he was a man in a tearing hurry; not for implementing any reform but in proving to the political establishment that he is capable of forcibly implementing the government policy without discussion, without debate and without analyzing its feasibility and desirability. The expressed provisions of the University Act, Statutes and Ordinances and past healthy practices were violated. The powers and dignity of Statutory Authorities (the DU Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council, the Faculties, etc), and also that of the Hon’ble President of India (Visitor), were subverted. Syllabi and structures were finalized by a handpicked group of anonymous people meeting at secret places and taking decisions on the directions of the Vice-Chancellor. No wonder the teaching community is feeling revolted. There are no takers for the VC’s logic for ignoring the due and established process of law in decision making. Opposition is not to any genuine reform but to the obliteration of democratic space in decision making.
Teachers are not per se opposed to any system, semester or annual. Semester system is working effectively in smaller institutions like JNU, IITs, IIMs, PG Departments in DU. In all these the students strength is limited, admission is central and through admission tests, and there is greater autonomy to teachers in academic matters. Whether or not the semester system would work effectively in a University like Delhi with over 1.8 lakh formal stream students, distributed over almost 70 colleges and about 60 departments, with decentralized admission that continues till September / October, with no autonomy to teachers is certainly a matter worthy of debate. The university system which cannot cope with one examination per year will crumble under the pressure of two examinations.
This needs to be asserted that the above mentioned apprehensions do not stand in the way of implementing reforms, periodic revision and up-gradation of syllabi, introduction of interdisciplinarity, ensuring mobility, continuous learning, modernizing the examination and evaluation system, etc. All these laudable objectives can be achieved by taking students and teachers on board and building a consensus through the due and laid down process. However it is wrong to assert that these objectives can be achieved only in the semester system and not in the annual one. The structures and syllabi finalized by DU for the 1st year semester based science courses miserably fail to meet any of the stated objectives. In fact by imposing a fixed 4X6 structure interdisciplinarity, innovative choices and mobility is impeded rather than encouraged.
Universities are places which should celebrate universalities of ideas. Unfortunately Dr. Deepak Pental had viewed DU as a corporate with himself as its CEO, with university officers as senior managers, and deans and heads as executive managers. The corporate culture that empowers the CEO to take all decisions and various rung of managers to implement them is bound to fail monumentally in a university system. It is fortunate that our Delhi University has some remaining vestige of the culture of 70s which is resisting the corporatization of our esteemed university. It is the corporate culture of the VC which was responsible for selling radioactive gamma irradiator as scrap. Will the CEO take all the responsibility for the academic disaster consequent upon this sale?
Hon’ble Dr. Deepak Pental should realize that by trying to CEOise the office of the Vice-Chancellor he has made DU mustier than what it was when he joined his office.
September 23, 2010
INDER KAPAHY
(Dept. of Physics, K.M. College, DU)
Former Elected Member:
DU Executive Council & Academic Council
Mobile No: 9810037679
e-mail: imkkmc@gmail.com
None of these three conclusions are based on objective facts; the author has not revealed his dialectical reasoning for arriving at these conclusions. And Pental does not explain an obvious contradiction in his article when he asserts that “DU is the top Indian University in a recent survey of Asian Universities”. The survey result contradicts his conclusions.
That Pental is blaming 1970s for the present ills of our university system betrays the symptoms that have colonized the collective mind of the present day educational establishment. 1970s was the period of collegiate expansion in DU, shifting of B.Sc. (Hons) courses to colleges, establishing and strengthening of democratic institutions in decision making, and inclusion and expansion of elected teachers representatives in the Statutory authorities like the DU Executive Council and the Academic Council. Mid’90s saw the emergence of the concepts of globalization, marketization and commercialization of higher education. It become fashionable, what was earlier blasphemous, to assert that the state should gradually withdraw from funding higher education. One very acclaimed Union Minister even placed higher education in the basket of non-merit goods. Foreign Universities Bill, Hospitals and Other Institutions Bill (to curb democratic space in university systems), Accreditation and Assessment Bill (to implement differentiated funding formulae according to ‘stars’ rating of the institutions) become the priority areas for state legislation. One should thank the culture of democracy imbibed in the 70s for halting the devastating march of commercial and market interests to capture our higher education systems. One should remember that even with state funding only 11% of eligible age group (17 to 25 years) receive higher education. Does Pental grudge even this small percentage reaching the portals of colleges? Or does he want students to rush towards private and foreign universities?
Pental is trying to cover his own multiple failures by accusing teachers and teachers’ association for all attempts to reform structures and revise and update syllabi. Most courses in sciences, humanities and social sciences had been revised often after every 6 to 7 years with the full involvement of university departments and college teachers without any problem. B.Sc. (Hons) courses in Physics and Chemistry, for example, have changed 6 times since 1970 including restructuring to make each of them an integrated course. Never any teacher association or ‘activist’ opposed these changes. It is only when the previous Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Deepak Nayyar, began the process of changing structures without involving teachers that the opposition by general teachers, not only by ‘self anointed activists’, also began. Under Deepak Nayyar structures of B.Sc. Programs were amended, without consulting and involving teachers through what were styled as ‘empowered committees’, with disastrous consequences. All the apprehensions articulated by teacher were proven true to haunt the B.Sc. Programs which have become immensely unpopular.
The manner in which Dr. Deepak Pental sought to introduce semester system and semester-based syllabi in sciences is too bizarre for words. It is becoming increasingly clear now that he was a man in a tearing hurry; not for implementing any reform but in proving to the political establishment that he is capable of forcibly implementing the government policy without discussion, without debate and without analyzing its feasibility and desirability. The expressed provisions of the University Act, Statutes and Ordinances and past healthy practices were violated. The powers and dignity of Statutory Authorities (the DU Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council, the Faculties, etc), and also that of the Hon’ble President of India (Visitor), were subverted. Syllabi and structures were finalized by a handpicked group of anonymous people meeting at secret places and taking decisions on the directions of the Vice-Chancellor. No wonder the teaching community is feeling revolted. There are no takers for the VC’s logic for ignoring the due and established process of law in decision making. Opposition is not to any genuine reform but to the obliteration of democratic space in decision making.
Teachers are not per se opposed to any system, semester or annual. Semester system is working effectively in smaller institutions like JNU, IITs, IIMs, PG Departments in DU. In all these the students strength is limited, admission is central and through admission tests, and there is greater autonomy to teachers in academic matters. Whether or not the semester system would work effectively in a University like Delhi with over 1.8 lakh formal stream students, distributed over almost 70 colleges and about 60 departments, with decentralized admission that continues till September / October, with no autonomy to teachers is certainly a matter worthy of debate. The university system which cannot cope with one examination per year will crumble under the pressure of two examinations.
This needs to be asserted that the above mentioned apprehensions do not stand in the way of implementing reforms, periodic revision and up-gradation of syllabi, introduction of interdisciplinarity, ensuring mobility, continuous learning, modernizing the examination and evaluation system, etc. All these laudable objectives can be achieved by taking students and teachers on board and building a consensus through the due and laid down process. However it is wrong to assert that these objectives can be achieved only in the semester system and not in the annual one. The structures and syllabi finalized by DU for the 1st year semester based science courses miserably fail to meet any of the stated objectives. In fact by imposing a fixed 4X6 structure interdisciplinarity, innovative choices and mobility is impeded rather than encouraged.
Universities are places which should celebrate universalities of ideas. Unfortunately Dr. Deepak Pental had viewed DU as a corporate with himself as its CEO, with university officers as senior managers, and deans and heads as executive managers. The corporate culture that empowers the CEO to take all decisions and various rung of managers to implement them is bound to fail monumentally in a university system. It is fortunate that our Delhi University has some remaining vestige of the culture of 70s which is resisting the corporatization of our esteemed university. It is the corporate culture of the VC which was responsible for selling radioactive gamma irradiator as scrap. Will the CEO take all the responsibility for the academic disaster consequent upon this sale?
Hon’ble Dr. Deepak Pental should realize that by trying to CEOise the office of the Vice-Chancellor he has made DU mustier than what it was when he joined his office.
September 23, 2010
INDER KAPAHY
(Dept. of Physics, K.M. College, DU)
Former Elected Member:
DU Executive Council & Academic Council
Mobile No: 9810037679
e-mail: imkkmc@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)