CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (Room No.315, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066) Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) Information Commissioner CIC/RM/A/2014/001293 SA (Video Conference Chennai) R.Natrajan, Chennai Vs. University Grants Commission, New Delhi Important Dates and time taken: RTI/CPIO: 21 8/11 9 13(21) 1 st Appeal: 17 8 2013 2 nd Appeal: 28 2 2014 Disposed of with directions Hearing:17 11 2015 Decision:24 11 2015 Parties present: The appellant is present for video conference at NIC Studio, Chennai. The Public Authority is represented by Dr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Section Officer. FACTS: 2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought information regarding a complaint made by a student Mr. M.Selvakumar against the Vinayaka Missions University and the information related thereon. 3. Claiming that information has not been received from the Public Authority, he approached the Commission in second appeal, after exhausting the first appeal. CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 1
PROCEEINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. Both the parties made their submissions. Appellant Mr. R. Natarajan through application dated 21.8.2013 sought to have following information: 1) whether Mr. M.Selva kumar made any complaint with the UGC about medical degree invalid 2) I would like to have the correspondence between the student who has been cheated and fraud by Vinayaka Missions University, Salem. Please state the action taken by the UGC against the University. 3) Is there any provisions for the officials of UGC as a regulator to check this act ; 4) What is the action of the UGC on the judgement of Madras High Court. The PIO replied on 11.9.2013 in one sentence no complaint received from Selvakumar. First Appellate Authority also confirmed the reply and closed the first appeal. Instead of RTI application, the appellate authority has transferred the appeal to Vinayaka Mission s Research Foundation (VMRF) Salem, as all deemed universities are covered under RTI Act. In fact, an FIR was registered by Mr Selva Kumar against the authorities of Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation Salem under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471, and 420 IPC r/w S 74 of Information Technology Act 2000, a copy of which was sent by the appellant. The FIR contains detailed complaint explaining how the students were felt cheated. The issue is very serious as the medicos complained that their degree of bachelor in medicine has not been recognized after they studied it for four years paying huge fee. They also complained that the medical graduates from this university were not being admitted in higher education courses off shore in different countries. The complainant Mr Selva Kumar, who graduated from this VMRF University, stated that he was misled by the Advertisements published by VMRF and the assurances by the Vice Chancellor. 5. On December 03, 2014 appellant wrote to Chairman UGC raising the following points: Point No.1: There are 2 contradictory statements made by the University Grants Commission officials: CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 2
1) Letter from Mr. Charandas, Under Secretary addressed to the Vice Chancellor, Vinayaka Missions University, Salem vide their letter dated 12 9 14. It shows very clearly from the letter an explanation was demanded by the officials of the University Grants Commission. 2) There was another letter from the US(Vigilance) dt. 29 10 14 stating it is for the University to decide and UGC has nothing to say on the subject. So both are contradictory statements and the officials of University Grants Commission s version is not acceptable in law. Point No.2: The No.2 point says the petitioner has raised about the off shore campus medical education Vinayak Missions University, Salem (a) There was a registered complaint FIR by Thiru Selvakumar against the university. (b) Fees was collected Rs.40 lakhs from each student, whereas as per UGC written admission in one of the RTI petition the fee is only 3&half lakhs. (c) 42 students whose life is in stake and the UGC officials colluded and or they have not taken necessary supervision of the deemed to be university, Vinayak University. Point No.3: The UGC written admission says for RTI petitionbefore the deemed university it was 20,57,994 sq.ft only. Whereas after the deemed university it was 33, 73,949 sq.ft The fund raising is a question mark and again the official has not acted properly and not brought to the notice of the IT Department. Point No.4: The hospitality methodology and the funding (it amounts to corrupt practice) for the inspectionof the experts committee from 29 31 Oct 2009 at Salem, Puducherry and Chennai. 6. The appellant sought to know the action taken on these aspects. He also filed a complaint to Chief Vigilance Officer of the UGC on October 3, 2014. He also complained about delay in evaluation of thesis submitted by him for award of Ph.D. UGC responded to some of the letters. UGC also wrote to the concerned university to take necessary action. On 13 th November 2015, the UGC wrote to University requesting them to provide the information sought. The UGC claimed on 29 th October 2014 that it has no role in Ph.D. related matter hence no case was made out against the Secretary UGC. Appellant was advised to approach the University for redressal of his grievance. CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 3
7. On 14 February 2015, Mr Charan Dass, Under Secretary wrote to the Vice Chancellor Vinayaka Mission s Research Foundation, Salem referring to following issues: 1. Undue delay on evaluation of the Ph.D thesis of Shri Natarajan, 2. Complaint filed by Shri Selva Kumar regarding off shore campus of Vinayaka Mission s RFesearch Foundation cc No.4/2013 Vs. 206/645/468/421/420 IPC. In this regard, the deemed to be university was asked to provide complete information to Shri Natarajan under the RTI Act, 2005. But the deemed to be university has not provided any information to either UGC or to Shri Natarajan. A copy of the complaint dated 17 9 2013, 28 10 2013, 22 11 2013 along with UGC letters dated 7 10 13, 16 11 13 and 3 1 2014 are again enclosed. 3. Shri Natarajan has alleged that the deemed to be university has collected a fee of Rs.40 lakhs from each student against the declared fee of Rs.3.50 lakhs per annum from 42 students. 4. Shri Natarjan had sought information about the details of the funds raised methods adopted by the deemed to be university for increase in infrastructure from 20,57,994.50 to 33, 73, 949.50 sq.ft now. The deemed to be university was requested to provide the information vide UGC letter dated 21 3 2013, but no information is received till date. 8. The UGC requested university to give the detailed information. It appears that the UGC office has simply acted as post office to transfer letters to the university. However the Commission noticed that there was no action on the complaints raised by the appellant regarding the nonrecognition of the degree, sufferings of 42 students, collection of Rs 40 lakh from each student as against declared fee of Rs 3.5 lakh, the cheating case registered by a student, etc. The University also did not respond to any of the letters written by the UGC. Role of UGC as Regulatory 9. The UGC is the regulator of all deemed to be Universities. The preamble of UGC [INSTITUTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITIES] REGULATIONS, 2010, explains the objective of the regulations: To regulate, in an orderly manner, the process of declaration of institutions as deemed to be universities; preventing institutions of dubious quality from being so declared; and, further to maintain quality of higher education imparted by institutions deemed to be universities consistent with the ideals of the concept of a university; the University Grants Commission, in CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 4
exercise of powers conferred under clauses [f]& [g] of sub section [I] of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. OBJECTIVES OF AN INSTITUTION DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY 10. The objectives for which an institution is declared by the Government as an institution deemed to be university shall be: 3.1 To provide for higher education leading to excellence and innovations in such branches of knowledge as may be deemed fit primarily at post-graduate and research degree levels fully conforming to the concept of university, namely, University Education Report (1948) and the Report of the Committee on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education in India (2009) and the Report of the Review Committee for Deemed to be Universities (2009). 3.3 To provide for high quality teaching and research and for the advancement of knowledge and its dissemination through various research programmes undertaken in- house by substantial number of full time faculty / research scholars (PhDs and Post Doctoral) in diverse disciplines. Relevant Conditions 4.16 There shall be a mandatory intensive external review of every deemed to be university once in every five years based on the criteria prescribed by the Commission from time to time. 4.18 The applicant institution shall have a track record of having not violated any of the provisions of any of the statutes / guidelines of any Statutory Authority in the period of five years preceding the date of submission of the application seeking status of an institution deemed to be university. Adhere to following criteria 5.1 The proposed institution deemed to be university shall be registered either as a not-for profit Society under the Societies Registration Act, or as a not-for profit Trust under the Public Trust Act with the Society / Trust strictly in accordance with the following provisions. Fee structure 6.4 The fee structure for various programmes of study in the deemed to be universities shall also be fixed in accordance with the Fee Regulations framed by the Government or by the Commission in this behalf from time to time. 6.5 The level of the fees charged for the courses offered in deemed to be universities shall have a reasonable relation to the cost of running the course. The fee structure shall be displayed in the prospectus and on the institution's website. 6.6 Every institution declared as a deemed to be university, public or private, shall ensure that there is no commercialization of education. Further, very such institution shall provide for equity and access to all deserving students. 11.0 MALNTENANCE OF STANDARDS CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 5
An institution deemed to be university shall maintain standards, higher than the minimum, of instruction, academic and physical infrastructure, qualifications of teachers, etc. as prescribed for college level institutions by the Commission or by the Statutory/Regulatory body concerned, such as All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Medical Council of India (MCI), Dental Council of India (DCI), National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), Bar Council of India (BCI), Indian Nursing Council (MC), etc. and shall obtain their approval for running various programs of study wherever applicable. This shall be periodically monitored by the duly constituted Committee (s) of the Commission. 22.0 CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS 22.1 The Central Government / Commission shall have the right to cause an inspection of the institution deemed to be university, its buildings, laboratories, its examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the institution deemed to be university, and to cause an enquiry to be made, if considered necessary by the Central Government / UGC, in respect of any matter of the institution deemed to be university. 22.2 After conducting an inspection of the institution deemed to be university by the Commission on its own or on the basis of any other authentic information or report received from any other reliable source(s) and after considering the ' Commission is satisfied that the institution deemed to be university explanation submitted by the institution deemed to be university, if the has violated any of the provisions of these Regulations or any directives issued by the Commission, the Commission may direct the concerned institution deemed to be university not to admit new students for the period to be decided by the Commission and in case of deliberate continuous violation of these Regulations, may advise the Central Government for withdrawal of the declaration notifying the institution as an institution deemed to be university. In the event of such withdrawal of the declaration, the entire movable and immovable properties of the institution deemed to be university shall stand forfeited to the Commission. For first violation, the withdrawal may be restricted to one academic session which can be extended up to five academic sessions for repeated violations. However, for serious and deliberate violation, the status of deemed to be university shall be withdrawn permanently. 11. The Government of India has constituted a committee to review the existing institutions deemed to be universities in 2009 under the chairmanship of Prof. Tandon, who submitted the report on 19 th October 2009, which says: Higher Education is recognized as an invaluable instrument for sustainable human development through both creation and dissemination of knowledge. Universities have a pivotal role in achieving these objectives. In the wake of the rapid expansion of the deemed to be universities in recent years, there have been serious public concerns extensively articulated by the media relating to their quality, performance and practices. Among others, these concerns were also noted in the recent Yash Pal Committee Report [Report of the Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education in 2009, which suggested inter alia, "...the granting of such status should be put on hold till unambiguous and rational guidelines are evolved. Institutions wishing to get deemed university status should demonstrate special capabilities as were originally intended CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 6
and should be rigorously evaluated to see if they fulfil the holistic and universal concept of university outlined in this report. The institutions, which have somehow managed to secure such status should be given a period of three years to develop as a university and fulfil the prescribed accreditation norm's failing which the status given to them would be withdrawn." Incomplete / inaccurate information During the face to face discussion with the Review Committee, it transpired that the information provided by some of the institutions was incomplete or inaccurate in respect of several key factors such as faculty strength and qualifications, PhD registrations, research publications, etc. Many institutions projected publications of their faculty prior to their joining the institution, as their own. Although the institutions were specifically requested to provide list of those publications which are captured by well established databases (e.g., SCOPUS, Web of Science, SCI etc.), many institutions listed publications in their own in house journals or in little known low impact journals, conference proceedings, etc. The institutions were therefore asked to submit supplementary / corrected information within specified time. Result 11. As a result of our overall assessment we find that the existing deemed universities fall into three groups, namely, I) those institutions which, on an aggregate of their achievements and performance as well potential, justify their continuation as "deemed universities" [Table I]; 2) those, which on an aggregate we find to be deficient in some aspects which need to be rectified over a three year period for them to transit in to the first category referred here for their continuation as "deemed universities" [Table II]; and, 3) those institutions deemed to be universities which, neither on past performance nor on their promise for the future, have the attributes, in our considered opinion, to retain their status as universities [Table, III] Supreme Court of India in Yashpal vs State of Chhattisgarh [2005 (5) SCC 420), may have to be kept in mind where the Hon'ble Court had dealt with the issue of affected students including those who were enrolled in green field substandard institutions. Having expressed our concern in regard to institutions in the third category, we must also confess that institutions listed in Table II also need to take comprehensive corrective steps urgently in respect of several parameters and in particular, deficiencies referred to in para 5. We have placed these institutions in Table II because there is scope for their improvement to meet the requirements expected to retain the status of a university. However, they must undergo a rigorous independent review after three years to justify their continuation as universities. 12.. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 7
(viii) Admissions to the deemed universities must be in accordance with para 13 of the UGC Guidelines and a mechanism should be devised for its early implementation. Introduction of centralised examination for all admissions to institutions of higher education, public or private, will obviate the scope of malpractices reportedly prevalent on a wide scale. (x) In future, creation of deemed universities under the "De novo "category should be resorted to only under extremely rare circumstances. Such creation should be strictly restricted only to genuinely emerging areas to fulfil a national need, make an impact on higher education and research and enable the country to become globally competitive in those areas. In order to prevent possible abuse of this requirement, any proposal for de novo category should be scrutinized by a high level committee consisting of national and international experts. 13. Conclusions...the Government may or may not be bound by a positive recommendation, yet no declaration of a deemed to be university can be made by the Government if the Commission does not recommend or gives an adverse recommendation. The gravity accorded by law to the value of UGC's recommendations is obvious. Government by definition is not a body of Experts and therefore relies on the considered advice of experts which, needless to say, must be tendered with utmost care and objectivity. Due to certain aberrations /distortions such as the ones mentioned in this report which have crept into the system so pervasively, the very idea of a deemed university has fallen into disrepute. The Committee would like to reiterate that establishment of a deemed university is in itself, not an undesirable practice as has been proved by a number of outstanding institutions in this category. This leads us to believe that the idea of deemed universities as originally conceived by the Radhakrishnan Commission continues to be relevant. However, the current guidelines and the process of declaration of institutions as deemed universities need to be overhauled in the light of the observations made in this report and implemented in letter and spirit. Alongside, the processes of affiliation by statutory universities and the degree of autonomy of colleges to be innovative need to be addressed squarely by the universities, State Governments, UGC and the Central Government. What is at stake is not merely the reputation of a few institutions deemed to be universities, but the credibility of the entire higher education system of the country. UGC Guidelines regarding these institutions, section 13 and 14 explain: Section 13 and 14 of Guidelines 13: Admissions shall be made on an All India basis to the identical courses in all the deemed to be universities through a common entrance test conducted either by the University Grants Commission or by an Institution/Agency identified and approved by the UGC. This shall CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 8
apply also to those institutions which have already been given the deemed to be university status. 14: Admission to the various professional courses, such as, Medical, Dental, Nursing, Engineering, pharmacy, Management and Legal Education etc., shall be made on the basis of regulations framed by the UGC in consultation with the respective statutory Councils. The fee structure will also be the same as laid down in the respective regulations. a) It is the statutory obligation of UGC to take necessary steps preventing institutions of dubious quality from being so declared; and, further to maintain quality of higher education imparted by institutions deemed to be universities consistent with the ideals of the concept of a university; b) The UGC has to initiate action in exercise of powers conferred under clauses [f] & [g] of sub section [I] of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. c) Whether any mandatory intensive external review was done with regard to this deemed to be university based on the criteria prescribed by the Commission? It is not known whether UGC insisted about external review reference to the VMRF. d) As per Section 5.1, the University has to prove that it was not for profit institution. When it is taking Rs 42 lakh fee per medico seat, the UGC has to examine the range of profit and take necessary action. According to 6.6 every private institution deemed to be university shall ensure that there is no commercialization of education. e) As per S. 22.1, the Central Government / Commission has the right to cause an inspection of the institution deemed to be university, its buildings, laboratories, its examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the institution deemed to be university, and to cause an enquiry to be made, if considered necessary by the Central Government / UGC, in respect of any matter of the institution deemed to be university. It is not known whether any such inspection was done in the wake of serious complaints and FIR against the University. f) It is very important to note that the VMRF University was placed in Table III i.e., C category institution by the Prof Tandon Committee, which means they neither on past performance nor on their promise for the future, have the attributes to retain their status as universities [Table, III] g) Tandon Committee recommended that the admissions to the deemed universities must be in accordance with para 13 of the UGC Guidelines and a mechanism should be devised for its early implementation. Introduction of centralised examination for all admissions to institutions of higher education, public or private, will obviate the scope of malpractices reportedly prevalent on a wide scale. h) The UGC has to explain whether action was taken against the VMRF University on this point. i) Tandon Committee recommended: It has been observed that the most pernicious effect of the recent undesirable multiplication of the number of deemed universities is the utter neglect of the ideals and spirit of the very concept CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 9
of a university. These need to be restored and all efforts should be made to protect it in future. (Paragraph xii) There should be a mandatory external review of every deemed university once in every five years. The review should be more intensive than at present and should include exhaustive parameters including those followed in this Review. (Paragraph xiii) j) The UGC has to inform the appellant whether any such measure was taken to ensure standards of education by intensive review. 12. The RTI application, number of letters written by the appellant and the FIR reveal several serious issues which the UGC should have taken cognizance of and acted promptly. The Commission finds it highly unreasonable that the CPIO was vehemently defending the VMRF University, as if he was hired counsel for that University, citing that the deemed to be universities have challenged the Tandon Committee report in court of law. He was contending that the matter was sub judice and hence no information could be given. The CPIO is a responsible officer of UGC dealing with the Deemed to be Universities. It is strange that CPIO of regulatory authority is arguing on behalf of the deemed to be university instead of explaining measures taken by the UGC against the University as per the guidelines and recommendations of the Tandon Committee. The inaction of the respondent authority is glaring and there was no effort to use regulatory power to take corrective measures or to get the information sought. The appellant and students are left to their fate to be the victims of the actions of VMRF University. DECISION: 13. The Commission directs a) the UGC to inform the appellant as per paragraphs (a) to (j) above of UGC guidelines, b) the UGC to explain when they would exercise their regulatory power to correct the deemed to be VMRF university considering this RTI application, appellant s complaints and FIR as the complaints lodged with UGC, c) the UGC to explain what measures they have taken to implement the recommendations of the Prof Tandon Committee, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 10
d) the Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation to give detailed point wise answers to all issues raised by the appellant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The Commission directs the Vice Chancellor/Registrar of VMRF to appear before the Commission and submit his written explanation to the Commission on all points raised by the appellant. 15. The Commission directs the CPIO/UGC to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him, for not furnishing the information within the prescribed period. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. 16. The Commission directs the Registrar of VMRF to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not providing information to the appellant. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. 17. The Commission directs the Registrar to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the appellant for harassing him without giving information and not addressing the issues raised by him within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. 18. The Commission orders accordingly. (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 11
(U.C.Joshi) Deputy Secretary Address of the parties : 1. The CPIO under RTI Act, Government of India University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 (RTI Cell) 2. Shri R.Natrajan Old No.50 A, Chamiers Road, Chennai 600028 CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 12
3. The Registrar, Vinayaka Mission University Sankari Mani Road, NH 47 Ariyanoor, SALEM 636308, Tamil Nadu 4. The Vice Chancellor, Vinayaka Mission s Research Foundation, Sankari Mani Road, NH 47 Ariyanoor, SALEM 636308, Tamil Nadu CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA Page 13