REPORT NO.
263
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE
ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THIRD REPORT
Functioning of the Indira Gandhi National Open University
(Presented to Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha on 6th May, 2014)
(Presented to Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha on 6th May, 2014)
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 11th June, 2014)
(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha 11th June, 2014)
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
June, 2014/Jyaishtha, 1936 (Saka)
Hindi version of this publication is also available
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE
ON HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THIRD REPORT
Functioning of the Indira Gandhi National Open University
(Presented to Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha on 6th May, 2014)
(Presented to Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha on 6th May, 2014)
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 11th June, 2014)
(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 11th June, 2014)
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
June, 2014/Jyaishtha, 1936 (Saka)
CONTENTS
PAGES
1.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE …...........................................................
(i)
2.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……….......…............................................................
(ii)
3.
PREFACE........................................................................................................ ..........
(iii)
4.
REPORT.........................................................................................…... .........................
1 - 27
5.
*OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE - AT A GLANCE
28 - 36
6.
*MINUTES .....................................................................................................................
37- 42
__________________________________________
*Will be appended at the printing stage.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
(Constituted w.e.f. 31st August, 2013)
1.
Shri Birender Singh
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
RAJYA SABHA
Shri A.W. Rabi Bernard
Shri Avinash Rai Khanna
^Shri Rama Chandra Khuntia
Dr. Bhalchandra Mungekar
Shri Derek O’ Brien
Shri Baishnab Parida
Chaudhary Munavver Saleem
Shri Tarun Vijay
Dr. Janardhan Waghmare

LOK SABHA
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Shri Suresh Angadi
Shri P.K. Biju
Shri Jeetendra Singh Bundela
Shri Sivasami C.
Shrimati Helen Davidson
Dr. Charles Dias
Shri Kapil Muni Karwariya
Shri Virender Kashyap
Shri Mahadeo Singh Khandela
Shri N. Peethambara Kurup
Shri Prasanta Kumar Majumdar
Shri Raghuvir Singh Meena
Capt. Jai Naraian Prasad Nishad
Shri M.K. Raghavan
Shri K. Chandrashekar Rao
Shri M.I. Shanavas
Shri Balkrishna K. Shukla
*Shri Bhoopendra Singh
Shri Kunwar Rewati Raman Singh
Ms. Ramya Divya Spandana
Shri Manicka Tagore
SECRETARIAT
Smt. Vandana Garg, Additional Secretary
Shri N.S. Walia, Director
Shri Arun Sharma, Joint Director
Smt. Himanshi Arya, Assistant Director
Smt. Harshita Shankar, Assistant Director
(i)
*Resigned from membership and Lok Sabha w.e.f. 13.12.2013
Chairman
ABBREVIATION
1.
IGNOU
Indira Gandhi National Open University
2.
ODL
Open and Distance Learning
3.
GER
Gross Enrolment Ratio
4.
AICTE
5.
UGC
University Grants Commission
6.
BoM
Board of Management
7.
DEC
Distance Education Council
8.
ODL
Open and Distance Learning
9.
NCTE
National Council for Teachers Education
10.
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
11.
HISCET
All India Council for Technical Education
Haryana IGNOU Society for Community Education and Training
(ii)
PREFACE
I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource
Development, having been authorized by the Committee, present this Two Hundred and Sixty Third Report
of the Committee on Functioning of the Indira Gandhi National Open University.
2.
The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee took up the subject of the Functioning
of IGNOU, a Central University.
3.
The Committee held extensive deliberations with a number of stakeholders which included
Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU, IGNOU Teachers Association,
representatives of Community Colleges from Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana and
Uttarakhand and other representatives of IGNOU. Views of the stakeholders and comments of the
Department were taken note of while formulating the observations and recommendations of the Committee.
4.
The Committee, while drafting the Report, relied on the following:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
Verbatim record of the oral evidence taken on the subject;
Presentation made and clarification given by the Secretary, Department of Higher
Education
Presentation made and clarification given by the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU
Presentation made and clarification given by the stakeholders of Community Colleges;
Presentation made and clarification given by the IGNOU Teacher's Association and other
representatives of IGNOU;
Replies to questionnaire received from the Department of Higher Education;
Replies to questionnaire received from the IGNOU Teacher's Association;
Replies to questionnaire received from the stakeholders;
Report of the High-Powered Committee appointed by IGNOU to review its Academic
Programmes;
Report of the Community Colleges Review Committee of IGNOU; and
Minutes of the relevant Meetings of Board of Management, IGNOU.
4.
The Committee considered the subject in three sittings held on 19th February, 28th March and 25th
April, 2014.
5.
The Committee considered the Draft Report on the subject and adopted the same in its meeting held
on 25th April, 2014.
6.
For facility of the reference, observations and recommendations of Committee have been printed in
bold letters at end of Report.
NEW DELHI
April, 25, 2014
Vaisakha 5, 1936 (Saka)
BIRENDER SINGH
Chairman
Department-related Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Human Resource Development
(iii)
1.1
REPORT
I
INTRODUCTION
The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) was established by an Act of
Parliament in 1985. The mandate of the University is to:(a) strengthen and diversify the degree, certificate and diploma courses related to the needs
of employment and necessary for building the economy of the country on the basis of its
natural and human resources;
(b) provide access to higher education for large segments of the population, and in
particular, the disadvantaged groups such as those living in remote and rural areas
including working people, housewives and other adults who wish to upgrade or acquire
knowledge through studies in various fields;
(c) promote acquisition of knowledge in a rapidly developing and changing society and to
continually offer opportunities for upgrading knowledge, training and skills in the context
of innovations, research and discovery in all fields of human endeavours;
(d) provide an innovative system of university level education, flexible and open, in regard
to methods and pace of learning, combination of courses, eligibility for enrolment, age of
entry, conduct of examination and operation of the programmes with a view to promote
learning and encourage excellence in new fields of knowledge;
(e) contribute to the improvement of the educational system in India by providing a
nonformal channel complementary to the formal system and encouraging transfer of credits
and exchange of teaching staff by making wide use of texts and other software developed
by the University;
(f) provide education and training in the various arts, crafts and skills of the country,
raising their quality and improving their availability to the people;
(g) provide or arrange training of teachers required for such activities or institutions;
(h) provide suitable post-graduate courses of study and promote research;
(i) provide the counselling and guidance to its students; and
(j) promote national integration and the integrated development of the human personality
through its policies and programmes.
1.2
IGNOU began by offering two academic programmes in 1987 i.e. Diploma in Management
and Diploma in Distance Education with strength of 4,528 students. The University has
continuously strived to build an inclusive knowledge society through inclusive education. It has
tried to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) by offering high-quality teaching through the
Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode.
1.3
The University has been networking with reputed public institutions and private enterprises
for enhancing the educational opportunities being offered by it. The University has established the
Centre for Extension Education, National Centre for Disability Studies and National Centre for
Innovation in Distance Education to focus on specific learner group and enrich the distance
learning system. IGNOU with the launch of EduSat has ushered in a new era of technologyenabled education in the country.
1.4
The University has been functioning quite efficiently and smoothly. However, in the recent
times, some contentious issues have been raised from time to time which primarily relate to
winding up of the Distance Education Council, discontinuance of certain programmes and courses,
closure of Community Colleges, thereby jeopardising the career of a large number of students who
had taken admission in them. Issue of the appointment of its present Vice-Chancellor has also
been raised. The Committee also understands that a number of court cases relating to different
aspects of the functioning of the University have been filed in this regard. Some of the complaints
were brought before the Committee also. Taking note of the facts placed before it, the Committee
felt that there was a need to examine the entire matter in totality, especially because the reputation
of a well-established premier Central University was involved. The Committee, accordingly,
decided to examine these issues impacting the overall functioning of the University.
II
CONSULTATION PROCESS
2.1
To begin with, the Committee sought the views of the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU and
Secretary, Department of Higher Education on the issues arising out of the complaints placed
before it. It heard the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU and the Secretary, Department of Higher
Education in its meeting held on the 19th February, 2014.
2.2
The Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU informed the Committee that on his taking over as a
permanent Vice-Chancellor on the 20th March, 2013, his attention was drawn to a few challenges
facing the University which required to be addressed without any further delay. These were the
convocation scheduled for the 12th April, 2013, delay in the distribution of study material to
students of July, 2012 session and admission for July, 2013 session.
2.3
The members then raised the issue of closure of Community Colleges and many
programmes. The Vice-Chancellor stated that problems started surfacing from 2007 onwards.
The Committee was given to understand that thousands of courses were running without any
approval, without any procedure, without any approval from the Academic Council and the Board
of Studies. The entire matter was placed before the Board of Management in November, 2011
which directed the constitution of a High-Powered Committee. The Board of Management also
directed that all the MoUs signed by the University should be subjected to a thorough review. Out
of the 500 Community Colleges, only 250 Community Colleges had admitted students and,
accordingly, their results were reviewed. Out of these 250 Community Colleges, only 146
Community Colleges had responded.
31,000 cases were reviewed and they were issued
certificates. It was also clarified that since the year 2000, IGNOU was running Army, Navy and
Assam Rifles Education Projects. Also, the four centres in the North-East were running.
2.4
The Committee then heard the views of the Secretary, Higher Education on the various
aspects relating to the functioning of IGNOU. The Secretary informed the Committee that the
problems started in 2007 when IGNOU started giving approvals to courses in the distance mode
for technical education. There was tripartite agreement between the three regulators, i.e. AICTE,
UGC and IGNOU but that never worked. Not only this, IGNOU just entered into MoUs and other
arrangements with all kinds of institutions and even individuals which was against all statutory
provisions. The Secretary also informed the Committee that a Sub-Committee had been set up
under the Board of Management with the task to fix responsibility therefor. On a specific query
with regard to the problems being faced by the students of Community Colleges, it was assured by
both the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU and the Secretary, Higher Education, that interests of all the
students had been fully protected.
2.5
During the interaction with the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU and the Secretary, Higher
Education, a number of areas of concern were raised. The Committee felt that it needed a
thorough introspection from all conceivable aspects. Only then an objective assessment about the
gamut of problem-areas being faced by IGNOU could be made. This exercise could only be
considered complete if the views of other stakeholders were also heard.
2.6
To make a further analysis of the circumstances that led to the discontinuation of the
Community Colleges Scheme, the Committee held discussion with some of the representatives of
the Community Colleges from Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, and
Uttarakahand on the 28th March, 2014. The representatives informed the Committee about the
manner in which they started Community Colleges in 2009.
IGNOU had published an
advertisement in the national level newspapers, seeking expression of interest from registered
societies or institutions who wished to open Community Colleges.
In response to that
advertisement, they applied for opening of Community Colleges. There was a national level
Expert Committee which had exclusive meetings with them. The Committee interviewed them,
verified their records and approved their proposals. After the approval, the Committee gave them
permission to open Community Colleges. Thereafter, they were supposed to form three regulatory
Committees, namely, Community Colleges Committee, Academic Committee and Examination
Committee with a representative from IGNOU. The IGNOU nominee used to monitor the
working of these Community Colleges time and again and a status report was being sent to
IGNOU. The enrolment of students was also done by IGNOU.
2.7
The Committee was further informed that the Community Colleges had spent huge funds
as per the requirements for setting up of Community Colleges and infrastructure, students
websites, furniture, CCTV cameras, conference room etc.
Community Colleges signed an
undertaking and after that the IGNOU officials completed their inspection of the Community
College and a recognition letter was sent to them. They also received the manual published by
IGNOU on the guidelines, all details like how to conduct exams, how to run colleges, how to
programme the syllabi and courses and so on. Thus, from 2009, the Scheme of Community
Colleges started and admissions started taking place and first batch was supposed to come in the
year 2010-11.
2.8
They further informed the Committee that everything was going on smoothly till they
received a letter from IGNOU that the Scheme of Community Colleges was being reviewed and
till the final outcome, the scheme was being kept in abeyance. The results of the students who had
appeared in the exams were declared on time but they were yet to receive their certificates.
IGNOU did not give any reason for putting this scheme in abeyance.
Subsequently, IGNOU
informed all the Community Colleges that their papers were reviewed and they found that some of
the colleges had not submitted all the papers. After the submission of their papers, IGNOU
informed them that 146 Community Colleges have been selected out of 532 Community Colleges.
Even though they selected 146 Community Colleges, but nothing had moved forward, no
certificate had been issued. No Community College was allowed to make fresh admissions and
even the existing students could not take exams since there was no directive from IGNOU. The
only reply they received from IGNOU was that it had been kept in abeyance and after few months
that they were informed that this scheme had been discontinued.
2.9
The representatives of Community Colleges submitted that this move of the University had
put them to immense problems since the students who had been admitted felt that it was the
college which was at fault. The career of a large number of students was at stake due to delay
tactics being played by IGNOU.
The representatives from Community Colleges of Kerala
informed that cases had been filed in Kerala High Court. The Court in its verdict said that students
be allotted enrolment number and IGNOU’s letter of abeyance be kept on hold. IGNOU had not
implemented the Court’s verdict even after two years. The Court also gave a verdict to declare the
result of the students but that was also not implemented. The representatives said that they had
tried to meet the Vice Chancellor and officials of IGNOU to plead their grievances.
However,
most of the time, they did not get any reply from them. Later, they were told that the Community
Colleges had been closed down because IGNOU had not got the mandate to run face to face
courses. It was also pointed out that the Delhi High Court judgement was only an observation of
the Court according to the affidavit submitted by IGNOU. The same judgement had blamed
IGNOU for not doing natural justice and for its gross negligence in action. This Court also
directed IGNOU to issue roll numbers, to conduct exams and to admit students to the second year
in AICTE approved colleges at the cost of IGNOU. All the verdicts came from different courts
favouring Community Colleges but the Vice Chancellor had kept everything aside and nothing had
been done so far.
2.10
The Committee sought to know the solution to the problem from the representatives of
Community Colleges from Kerala. They informed the Committee that first of all the Community
Colleges website should be opened and the results should be published through that website and
secondly the certificates may be issued on the basis of that result. Thirdly, the Community
Colleges should be permitted to conduct the pending examinations of the students who have
already been admitted and issue enrolment number for conduct of examination before the 30th
April. Lastly, the enrolment numbers may be issued to those who were waiting for the third year
degree after completion of ADP and conduct their examination along with the term-end
examination of the IGNOU.
2.11
To have better understanding of the complex issues relating to IGNOU, the Committee also
heard the representatives of the IGNOU Teachers' Association.
Its interaction with the
Association gave a fair idea to the Committee that the University was facing problems. It was
pointed out that the meetings of the Board of Management were not being conducted as envisaged.
Grievances of teachers were also not being addressed properly.
The undercurrent of the
interaction was that the role being played by both the Vice-Chancellor and the Ministry was not as
expected of these authorities.
2.12
Lastly, the Committee also had the opportunity to share the experience of one ex-Pro-Vice-
Chancellor and an official of the University. This discussion enabled the Committee to have an
insight into the various problems being faced in the University at the ground level.
2.13
Committee's detailed and in depth discussions with all the stakeholders right from the
Secretary, Higher Education to the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU to representatives of a few
Community
Colleges, representatives of IGNOU Teachers' Association and two experts
associated with the University have enabled it to have an idea about the inherent complexities
connected with the various areas of concern afflicting the University. After an extensive analysis
of the entire matter, the Committee could identity the genesis behind the different problem-areas,
gravity of the issues, areas of their impact, factors leading to such a situation and the viable
solutions resulting in strengthening the functioning of the University.
In the succeeding
paragraphs, the Committee has dwelt upon the same.
III
APPOINTMENT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
3.1
It was pointed out that the process of appointment of the present Vice-Chancellor was not
as per the Statutes of IGNOU which said that the senior-most Pro-Vice-Chancellor was to be made
the Vice-Chancellor. However, Prof. Aslam was not the senior-most Pro-Vice-Chancellor at that
time. Similarly, the aspect regarding his confirmation as the Vice-Chancellor also needed to be
looked into. Joint Secretary, instead of Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development
representing the Ministry in the meetings and extension beyond the age of 65 years needed to be
examined.
3.2
On the issue of appointment, the Vice-Chancellor and Secretary, Department of Higher
Education in their presentation before the Committee submitted that the appointment of ViceChancellor of IGNOU was regulated under Statute 1 (6) of IGNOU Act which States that.
“If the office of Vice-Chancellor becomes vacant due to death, resignation or
otherwise, or if he is unable to perform his duties due to ill health or any other
cause, the senior most Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall perform the duties of the ViceChancellor, and if there is no Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the senior most Professor from
amongst Directors of the Schools shall perform the functions of the Vice-
Chancellor until the new Vice-Chancellor assumes his office or until the existing
Vice-Chancellor attends to the duties of his office as the case may be”
3.3
The Committee was informed that under the above provisions, Prof. M. Aslam, the then
senior most Professor from amongst the Directors of the Schools was asked to function as ViceChancellor, IGNOU on the 20th October, 2011 when the term of the previous Vice-Chancellor,
Professor V.N. Rajasekharan Pillai expired. The Department also submitted that when term of
Prof. V.N. Rajasekharan Pillai, as Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU expired, the term of the Pro-ViceChancellors also stood expired on the same date as their appointment was co-terminus with that of
Vice-Chancellor.
Thereafter, Prof. M. Aslam was given the charge of the office of Vice-
Chancellor as he was the senior most Professor amongst the Directors of Schools Prof. M. Aslam
held the office as acting Vice-Chancellor till his superannuation i.e. 31st July, 2012, after which
Prof. Gopinath Pradhan, the Senior-Most Director in the University, was made acting ViceChancellor and held the post till 20th March, 2013. It was accordingly clarified that no violation of
rules had taken place in the appointment of acting Vice-Chancellor of University after expiry of
term of the regular Vice-Chancellor on the 20th October, 2011.
3.4
On the issue of appointment of the acting Vice-Chancellor, Prof. M. Aslam as the regular
Vice-Chancellor the Secretary, Department of Higher Education submitted that the appointment of
Vice-Chancellor was regulated by Statute 1(2) of the IGNOU Act which states that:“The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Visitor from out of a panel of not
less than three persons recommended by a Committee under clause(3)’;
Clause (3) of the statute read as “The Committee referred to in clause (2) shall
consist of three members of whom two shall be nominated by the Board of
Management and one by the Visitor, and the person nominated by the Visitor shall
be the convenor of the Committee”.
3.5
The Committee was informed that, accordingly, a Committee headed by Justice V.N.
Khare, former Chief Justice of India was constituted and two other members being Shri J.M.
Lyngdoh, former Election Commissioner and Prof. S.K. Joshi, former Director General, CSIR.
The Department submitted that the Committee recommended a panel of the following three
persons for consideration of the Visitor, Prof M. Aslam, Prof. Sanjay Dhande and Prof. Dipankar
Gupta. From the panel, the President of India in his capacity as Visitor, approved the name of
Prof. M. Aslam as regular Vice-Chancellor of the University. Thus, the selection process of the
regular permanent Vice-Chancellor was absolutely in order and as per the rules and the procedure.
3.6
A specific query regarding the practice earlier with regard to the selection of senior-most
Pro-Vice-Chancellor or from the senior-most Professor as the Vice-Chancellor on the retirement of
the Vice-Chancellor elicited the response of the Secretary that the issue needed to be looked into.
It was, however, clarified that the appointment letters of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors mentioned that
their terms were co-terminus with the Vice-Chancellor.
3.7
The Committee has taken note of Statute 1(6) of the IGNOU Act which clearly specifies
that on the Office of the Vice-Chancellor becoming vacant due to death, resignation or otherwise,
the senior-most Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor and if there is
no Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the senior-most Professor from amongst the Directors of the Schools shall
perform the functions of the Vice-Chancellor. Committee’s attention has also been drawn by
second proviso to Statute 3(2) as per which a Pro-Vice-chancellor performing the functions of the
Vice-Chancellor shall continue in office, notwithstanding the expiration of his term of Office as
Pro-Vice-Chancellor until a new Vice-Chancellor assumes his office or until the existing ViceChancellor attends to the duties of his office.
3.8
The Committee is aware that the terms of all the four Pro-Vice-Chancellors were co-
terminus with the then Vice-Chancellor. The Committee would, however, like to point out
that this situation arising on the completion of the term of the Vice-Chancellor on the 20th
October, 2011 could have been easily anticipated. The Committee was given to understand
that in the past the charge of Vice-Chancellor was always handed over to the senior most
Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The Committee would like to point-out that Statute 1(6) provides that
in the event of the office of the Vice-Chancellor becoming vacant, the senior-most Pro-ViceChancellor shall perform the duties of Vice-Chancellor and if there is no Pro-ViceChancellor, the senior most Professor from amongst the Directors of School shall perform
the functions of Vice-Chancellor. Statute 3(2) provides that the term of Pro-Vice-Chancellor
shall be decided by the Board of Management and shall not exceed three years or until the
expiration of the term of Vice-Chancellor. Second proviso to Statute 3(2) clearly mentions
that a Pro-Vice-Chancellor while performing the functions of the Vice-Chancellor under
Statute 1(6) shall continue in office notwithstanding the expiry of his term as Pro-ViceChancellor. The Committee is of the view that there is an element of ambiguity in these two
Statutes as they are liable to be interpreted either way. The Committee, accordingly,
recommends that Statute 1(6) and 3(2) need to be reviewed and amended suitably to avoid
such occurrences in future. The Committee is also not very happy with the role played by
the Ministry. It could have advised the University in the right perspective taking note of the
relevant issues, past practice and the emerging scenario.
3.9
While interacting with a former Pro-Vice-Chancellor and an official of IGNOU, certain
facts were placed before the Committee which clearly indicated that the issue of handing over the
charge of Vice-Chancellor to the senior most Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Senior-most Professor was not
handled in an objective manner. The Committee was informed that a writ petition had been filed
in the Delhi High Court, challenging the appointment of Prof. Aslam as the Acting ViceChancellor as the senior-most Professor amongst the Directors. On that basis and also in the light
of the term of Prof. Aslam as the Director of the School of Continuing Education coming to an end
on the 31st December, 2011, a request had been made for the postponement of the 111th meeting of
the Board of Management scheduled for the 29th December, 2011. Not only the meeting of the
Board was duly held but the facts as furnished by the previous Vice-Chancellor regarding the
irregularities in the handing over the charge of Vice-Chancellor to Prof. Aslam were not placed
before the Delhi High Court.
3.10
The Committee was informed that case before the next date of the Delhi High Court was
fixed for 2nd February, 2012 and Prof. Pillai had sent a detailed letter to the University on 29th
January, 2012 itself.
Prof. Pillai had challenged the stand taken by the University before the
Court that he did not give the charge to the senior-most Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Dr. Latha Pillai) on
completion of his term. In fact, the charge handover to the senior-most Pro-Vice-Chancellor was
duly approved by him which had been accepted by her. In case of her non-acceptance, charge
would have been given to the next Pro-Vice-Chancellor. It was also clarified that the Office
Circular dated 14th September, 2011 was a mere endorsement of the statutory provision. The
specific request made by Prof. Pillai for placing these facts before the Delhi High Court was
simply ignored.
3.11
During his deposition before the Committee, Prof. Ramanujam, one of the pro-Vice-
Chancellors during that period, informed that in the past on similar occasions, charge of ViceChancellor was duly handed over to the senior-most Pro-Vice-Chancellor. He also shared details
of discussions regarding inherent discrepancies involved in the handing over of charge of ViceChancellor to the senior-most Professor instead of senior-most Pro-Vice-Chancellor on the 20th
October, 2011. On being asked about the reason in the delay on handing over the charge to the
senior-most Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar informed the outgoing Vice-Chancellor that a fax
letter had come from the Ministry as per which the charge was to be given to the senior-most
Professor from amongst the Directors. The orders for appointing the senior most Pro-ViceChancellor as acting Vice-Chancellor were given by the outgoing Vice-Chancellor at 3.30 p.m.
and the fax message from the Ministry was received at 6.30 p.m., that too from a Consultant and
not a permanent employee of the Ministry.
3.12
The documents made available to the Committee by the witnesses and also its
interaction with them make it abundantly clear that the issue of handing over the charge of
Vice-Chancellor to the rightful claimant was not handled in a judicious and objective
manner, in accordance with the statutory provisions. On the contrary, every effort was
made to delay not only the specific statutory requirements but also to totally ignore the wellestablished practice of similar occasions in the past. This raises very disturbing issues,
especially in the backdrop of the matter already being sub-judice.
The Committee is
particularly disturbed by the role played by the Department in the entire affair. It seems
that both the Department and the acting Vice-Chancellor, who apparently had a vested
interest, were together in misleading the High Court.
The process of distorting facts
continues even now when the persistent queries from the Committee have elicited very
categorical denial from both the Vice-Chancellor and the Secretary, Higher Education. Had
it not been the clarifications/details supported by documents by the two witnesses, the
Committee would also have simply been misled.
3.13
The Committee also finds it very strange that the acting Vice-Chancellor could go
ahead by taking decisions on crucial policies/schemes of the University when five nominees of
the Visitor were to be nominated. Three meetings of the BoM were held when five nominees
of the Visitor were yet to be nominated. A perusal of the minutes of the meetings of the
Board of Management confirms the observations of the Committee. The fact remains that
where the authority is entrusted with the acting charge he should handle only routine affairs.
The Committee finds no justification for non-adherence to this well-established and justified
practice.
3.14
The other contentious issue related to the attending of the Board meetings by the Joint
Secretary, in the place of the Secretary, Department of Higher Education who was statutorily
mandated to be the member of the Board. It was pointed out that it was practically impossible for
the Secretary to attend the meetings of about 150 institutions under the Department. None of the
previous Secretaries were regularly attending the meetings of the Board of Management of
IGNOU. On this practice being questioned, the Committee was assured that all the relevant Acts
would be amended one by one so that representative of the Secretary was also duly authorised to
attend these meetings.
3.15
The Committee takes objection to the contention of the Secretary that due to pre-
occupation of the Secretary, Joint Secretary concerned was representing him in the Board of
Management meetings of IGNOU and this has been the practice as in the case of other
similar bodies. The Committee would like to point out that all the statutory provisions are
required to be adhered to in the true spirit. The Committee would appreciate that as
assured by the Secretary, amendments are going to be made in all the relevant Acts. Till
then, it should be ensured that all such meetings are attended by the Secretary.
IV
DISSOLUTION OF THE DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL (DEC)
4.1
Dissolution of the Distance Education Council was another issue which was brought before
the Committee. It was pointed out that this move was a decision taken in haste without taking into
consideration all the relevant factors and its resultant impact on all concerned. On being asked in
this regard, the Department submitted that the Distance Education Council (DEC) of IGNOU was
created through Statute 28 of the IGNOU Act, 1985, after receiving the approval of the Visitor in
the year 1991. Upto 2007, DEC used to give recognition to institutions offering general courses in
the distance mode but from that year, it also started giving recognition for technical programmes
also under the distance mode. It was pointed out that this was against the policy of AICTE, which
was responsible for maintaining standards in technical education, to conduct technical programmes
through regular (conventional) mode only. Besides that, the Delhi University had challenged the
authority of DEC to regulate their ODL programmes in the Delhi High Court. The main issue
before the Court was whether an authority of one University could regulate other Universities.
4.2
Taking cognizance of this situation, the Department in 2010, constituted a seven member
Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. N.R. Madhav Menon, to suggest measures to regulate
the standards of education imparted through distance mode.
The Department, in principle,
accepted the report submitted by this Committee, except creation of a separate regulatory authority
for Distance Education system in the country due to pendency of the Higher Education and
Research Bill, 2011 in the Parliament which envisaged subsuming of all the existing regulators.
Instead of creating a separate regulatory body, the Department took a decision to dissolve DEC
and let the existing regulators viz. UGC and AICTE, created by the respective Acts of Parliament
to perform the regulatory responsibilities for ODL mode also.
4.3
The Committee was informed that upon the approval of the Madhav Menon Committee
Report, the minutes of the meeting were forwarded to AICTE, UGC and DEC on the 30th April,
2012, pursuant to which the matter was discussed in DEC's 40th meeting held on the 8th June,
2012.
After due deliberations, DEC recommended to the Board of Management of IGNOU to
repeal Statute 28 whereunder DEC was created. The resolution of DEC was approved by the
Board which recommended repeal of Statute 28. Based on the approval of DEC and the Board, the
proposal to repeal Statute 28 to cause dissolution of DEC was placed before the Visitor (President
of India). The Visitor approved the proposal, based on which IGNOU was requested to repeal
Statute 28. IGNOU, accordingly notified repealing of Statute 28 vide notification dated the 1st
May, 2013. The Department further added that the Secretariats of both the Houses of Parliament
had been requested to lay the notification.
4.4
The Committee notes that the Distance Education Council, which was mandated to
regulate distance education in the country, had come into existence as an authority of
IGNOU under Statute 28 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 of the
IGNOU Act, 1985. The Committee does not find any merit or justification in the kind of
initiative taken by the Department in dissolving a statutory body functioning since 1991.
The Committee is well aware that the Delhi University had challenged the authority of DEC
to regulate their ODL programmes in the Delhi High Court. But it is also equally true that
the Madhav Menon Committee, while suggesting measures to regulate the standards of
education being imparted through distance mode, had also recommended creation of a
separate regulatory authority, the Distance Education Council for regulating distance
education by a separate Act of Parliament. The Committee fails to understand the element
of urgency behind the move of the Department to entrust UGC and AICTE to perform the
regulatory responsibilities for Open and Distance Learning mode also. The Committee
would like to point out that nowhere in the Acts governing UGC and AICTE, responsibility
of regulating distance education has been entrusted to these authorities. The argument of
the Department that the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 envisaging subsuming of
all existing regulators also does not hold ground. The Committee would like to point out that
even this proposed legislation has left untouched the Distance Education Council. Not only
this, the Committee in its Report on the Bill had strongly advocated the need for having an
independent statutory authority for distance education.
4.5
Another worrisome aspect for the Committee is that the Report on the Higher Education
and Research Bill, 2011 was presented on the 13th December, 2012 after extensive deliberations
with all the stakeholders including the Department of Higher Education beginning from February,
2012. It was during this period only that the issue of dissolution of DEC was being discussed by
the concerned authorities, i.e UGC, AICTE, DEC and the Board of Management of IGNOU. Not
only this, in the meetings of both DEC and the Board of Management of IGNOU, the two
prominent views which emerged were that (i) it would be appropriate if DEC is made an
independent regulator rather then bringing it under UGC and (ii) DEC should continue under
IGNOU in the present set-up. The Committee also observes that it took three meetings of the
Board of Management to give a formal approval to the resolution of DEC to repeal Statute 28 of
the IGNOU Act.
4.6
The Committee observes that the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 is yet to
be passed by the Parliament. Recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee
for retaining the bodies like UGC, AICTE and NCTE and also DEC as an independent
statutory authority is bound to be reflected in the proposed legislation. Not only this, what is
more surprising is that the proposal for dissolution of DEC was strongly resisted by the
Council as well as the Board of Management of IGNOU. The minutes of the meetings of the
Board of Management are self-revealing where majority view was strongly against such a
move. Arguments put forth were substantive enough and did not deserve to be ignored. The
Committee is constrained to observe that the views of the Department's nominee prevailed
upon the majority of members representing the University and having the first hand
experience about the role and mandate of DEC. A Central University is considered to be an
autonomous body having well-defined powers and functions and fully authorised to act
accordingly. But the meeting of the Board indicated very obviously that the University was
destined to follow the diktat of the Department, notwithstanding the viability of the move.
The Committee expresses its serious concern on the entire issue.
4.7
The Committee would also like to point out that the writ petition of the Delhi
University before the Delhi High Court challenging the status of DEC as an authority of
IGNOU could have been easily addressed by giving the status of an independent statutory
authority as recommended by the Madhav Menon Committee and by the Committee on
HRD in its Report on the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011.
V
DISCONTINUANCE OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES SCHEME
5.1
Committee’s attention has been drawn by the issue of closing of 532 Community Colleges
by IGNOU and its resultant impact on all the stakeholders, particularly the student community.
On a specific query in this regard, the Department submitted that as informed by IGNOU, there
were 532 Community Colleges allowed to operate under the IGNOU Community Colleges
Scheme in clear violation of the IGNOU Act, Statute and Ordinances. These Colleges were
allowed to offer all sorts of programmes in face-to- face mode in the name of IGNOU, which was
a violation of the IGNOU Act as the University was mandated to impart education through Open
and Distance Learning mode only. Besides, there was no control over fee fixation except deciding
IGNOU share i.e `250/- for certificate, `500/- for Diploma and `750/- for Degree programmes.
There was also no mechanism in place as to how much these Colleges were actually charging from
students. Admissions and examinations were conducted directly by these colleges and IGNOU
was expected to offer degrees and diplomas in areas unknown to the academic framework of
IGNOU.
5.2
The IGNOU Community Colleges Scheme was launched on the 4th July, 2009. Under this
Scheme, a Community College can get registered for offering academic programmes at the level of
certificate, diploma, associate degree and non-credit customised. After successful completion of
study through this Scheme, a student will be certified by IGNOU. A Community College gets
registered with IGNOU provided it fulfils certain conditions. There is a specified regulatory
mechanism under the Scheme having Community College Board, Academic Committee,
Examination Committee. Each body has a representative from IGNOU who will be providing
guidance to the Community College and give a report to the Community College Unit of IGNOU.
Monitoring will also be done by the Regional Centres. IGNOU observers will also be there during
examinations.
5.3
The Committee observes that the Scheme of Community Colleges was a well-conceived
Scheme having the required bodies and monitoring mechanism in place. The Concept Note for
Associate Degree Programme through Community College was considered and approved at the
46th meeting of the Academic Council held on the 13th January, 2009. It was followed by formal
approval by the Board of Management in its meeting held on the 15th April, 2009. Subsequently, a
series of meetings of various Expert Committees, experience-sharing by international experts,
seminars, training programmes, teleconferences were held. This process made all the stakeholders
aware about the Community Colleges Scheme in totality. During the initial year of the launch of
the Scheme, Gyandeep Project- IGNOU Army Community College Scheme was initiated on the
4th September, 2009, followed by launch of Akashdeep Project-IGNOU Air Force Community
College Scheme on the 27th December, 2010 and the Sagardeep Project IGNOU
Navy
Community College Scheme on the 24th June, 2011. The Committee also takes note of the fact
that this Scheme was introduced in the country, keeping in view the major contribution of
Community Colleges in different parts of the world to extend access to post secondary studies for
millions of students who would otherwise not have the desired opportunity.
5.4
The above details leave no doubt that the Scheme of Community Colleges was the outcome
of extensive deliberations involving all the stakeholders. All the regulatory bodies were duly put
in place with a multi-level monitoring mechanism involving all the stakeholders with IGNOU
playing the role of Co-ordinator.
The Scheme was initiated by IGNOU and was to be
implemented by the various Community Colleges under the close supervision of IGNOU. Any
deviation or departure from the guidelines could have been easily identified and remedial measures
taken accordingly.
5.5
The Committee observes that the Scheme launched on the 4th July, 2009 had hardly
completed two years when the Board of Management, in its meeting held on the 29th December,
2011 was informed by the Chairman (Vice-Chancellor) about some major issues and challenges
faced by him as the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU. After some discussion, the Board decided to
constitute a High Powered Committee to review the role of IGNOU as mandated, examine the
entire gamut of issues and trade between quality and quantity as per the Act and submit its Report
in a time-bound manner for further decision/direction. One of the issues to be taken up by this
Committee was to examine the recently introduced Scheme of IGNOU Community Colleges and
its conformity with the Act, Statutes and Ordinances of the University to provide legitimacy and
authenticity to this new initiative.
5.6
The High Powered Committee in its report submitted on the 14th May, 2012 observed the
following:"In 2009, IGNOU launched its Community College Scheme. The main objectives
of the scheme were:
 Skill-based education leading to certification by IGNOU;



A successful intervention into the National Skill Mission;
Contribution towards enhancement of Gross Enrolment Ratio; and
Provision of vertical mobility from vocational to higher education.
Some 500 vocational training, institutions across the country, including the training
centres of the Defence Services, were selected through Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) between IGNOU and each of these colleges. The major
provisions in the MOUs were:



IGNOU will certify the courses offered by these institutions on the basis of
successful completion of the courses they are currently running;
IGNOU will nominate a representative on the relevant authorities of the
colleges to ensure that the content, instructional system and testing practices are
of acceptable quality;
The students of these institutions will be awarded an Associate degree if they
earn 64 credits in all (the programme they complete from their own institution
together with, if necessary, additional modules from the many programmes
offered by the university);
The colleges can admit students to IGNOU’s programmes selected by them and
charge a fee prescribed by them from which IGNOU will be paid the standard fee.
 Community-based training institutions who wish to join this programme have to
sign an undertaking accepting the terms and conditions of the Scheme.
5.7
The High Powered Committee made the assessment of the Scheme as follows:
"The programme has run for two years now. Though the initiative has still to be
formalised as a regular programme of the IGNOU, it is worthwhile to examine the
experience gained from this experiment and draw appropriate lessons and based on
those lessons formalise the scheme as early as possible. The important issues that
have surfaced from the two-year experiment are:







The authenticity of the statutory provisions in the IGNOU Act is not formally
and fully reflected or protected in the contractual obligations entered into
between IGNOU and the participating institution;
Structures and processes for the supervision and control of the programme are
not settled through statutory provisions;
Curriculum structure and assessment procedures are not formally laid down;
Monitoring and evaluation systems are not strong and adequate;
There are no quality assurance processes and mechanisms;
Accreditation of prior learning, credit transfer, and further requirements for
grant of Associate degree by IGNOU need to be clearly spelt out;
In the absence of these provisions, there are opportunities for misuse of the
scheme that permits enrolment of students in the regular programmes of the
university".
5.8
The Committee takes note of the fact that the High Powered Committee was of the view
that the Scheme of Community Colleges fits well with IGNOU’s mandate for skill development.
It was pointed out that the objectives of the Scheme of Community Colleges should be
development of skills consistent with the objectives of the National Skill Development Mission.
In order to meet these objectives, the High Powered Committee recommended the restructuring of
the Scheme as indicated below:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
5.9
There should be an appropriate statutory mechanism responsible for designing,
developing and delivering all programmes of skill development through the
instrument of Community Colleges.
This statute should have the following provisions:
 The composition of the Authority, Board or any other structure for the
administration of the Scheme; and
 Its composition powers and functions.
The Processes:
This body when established shall lay down the details of the terms and conditions
for selection of colleges or institutes, their responsibilities including duties and
obligations, the processes for settling the curricula, the instructional system,
assessment procedures and practices, quality assurance systems, the basis of sharing
the fees, accreditation/recognition procedures, mechanisms for monitoring and
evaluation of their performance, additional requirements to earn Associate degree,
and the modules to be completed for further high education programmes of their
choice and so on.
The Committee also observes that the major recommendation of the High Powered
Committee was that till such restructuring took place, no new colleges should be admitted to the
Scheme of Community Colleges.
5.10
The Report of the High Powered Committee was placed before the Board of Management
in its meeting held on the 31st May, 2012. On the Community Colleges Scheme, the Board
resolved as follows:
-
5.11
Community Colleges Scheme be subjected to a thorough time-bound review. Till then,
all actions be kept in abeyance. The Vice-Chancellor may constitute the Review
Committee(s) to complete the task in six months.
Subsequently, the Vice-Chancellor constituted the Community Colleges Review
Committee on the 6th July, 2012 with the following terms of reference:
-
-
-
5.12
to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing IGNOU Community Colleges
Scheme in the light of the findings/recommendations of the High Powered Committee
approved by the Board of Management.
to frame a revised scheme, consistent with the objectives of the National Skill
Development Mission and National Technical and Vocational Qualification
Framework.
to recommend an organizational structure for the implementation of the Scheme.
to recommend model guidelines for the implementation of the Scheme.
to consider and recommend special provisions to protect the continuance or the existing
arrangements for organizing skill development programmes.
to suggest mechanism to safeguard the academic interest of the existing students,
defence personnel etc. enrolled under the Scheme.
The Committee, thereafter, went through the recommendations of the Community Colleges
Review Committee which were submitted to the Vice Chancellor, IGNOU on the 19th November
2012. The broad recommendations of the Review Committee were as follows:
(a) Provision for Statute/Ordinance for offering programme through Community Colleges
should be made.
(b) The IGNOU Community Colleges Scheme-2012, as proposed be introduced
(c) Community Colleges Division should be created as per the Organisational Structure and
human resources recommended therein.
(d) The qualifications of the faculty to be engaged by the Community Colleges for Vocational
Education courses should be as per the norms of AICTE.
(e) Professional Development of the Faculty and Staff of CCs may be done by IGNOU Faculty
from various Schools of Studies, Staff Training and Research Institute of Distance
Education and the Community Colleges cum Knowledge and Skill Providers identified by
IGNOU.
(f) The University may include Armed Force Community Colleges
in the Scheme of
Community Colleges and ask the Armed Forces to follow the Scheme. Alternatively, the
University may create a separate Scheme for them.
(g) HISCET should be treated as a Community College They must submit necessary
documents for registration as Community College and offer the programmes.
(h) Human Resource Requirement in concerned IGNOU Divisions
(i) Towards safeguarding interests of Existing Students: The Vice-Chancellor may constitute a
Screening Committee to examine and identify the Community Colleges which have
followed all the provisions of the existing Community Colleges Scheme. The existing
students of such Community Colleges may be permitted to complete the programmes of
study to which they were admitted as per the ongoing Scheme.
(j) No fresh admissions be permitted in Community Colleges till the University frames a
revised Community Colleges Scheme.
5.13
The Review Committee also made the following recommendations:-
(a) To begin with, IGNOU may consider establishing 100 Community Colleges/Community
College cum Knowledge and Skill Providers.
(b) IGNOU may fund some of the Community Colleges and/or establish its own Community
Colleges as Model Community Colleges at some places over the period of time.
(c) IGNOU may consider providing budgetary support to the tune of `1,00,000 (Rupees one
Crore) as Seed Money for undertaking various activities pertaining to the setting-up of the
Community College System in the University.
5.14
The Board of Management at its meeting held on the 5th January, 2013 directed that:
-
before introduction of any new scheme, objectivity and transparency may be ensured to
avoid controversies/legal implications.
- recommendations of the Review Committee are in consonance with the provisions of
IGNOU Act/Statutes/Ordinance.
- results of the students under the existing scheme are declared without delay
safeguarding their interests.
- ongoing court cases are handled carefully ensuring the best interests of students and the
University.
The Board also approved for setting up of a separate Armed Forces Unit for defence
personnel for offering programmes in conformity with the Act, Statutes and Ordinances of
the University.
5.15
The Board of Management, in its meeting held on the 15th June, 2013 approved the
following recommendations made by the Review Committee:
-
discontinuance of the existing Community Colleges Scheme
introduction of a new Community Colleges
Scheme through a separate
statute/ordinance.
The Board also approved the recommendations of the Screening Committee for declaration of
pending results under both the Community Colleges Scheme and the Armed Forces Community
Colleges Scheme. The future examinations for the remaining students were to be conducted by the
Student Evaluation Division as per the established procedure of the University.
5.16
The Committee, while making a comparison of the High Powered Committee Report
dated May, 2012, the Minutes of the 118th Meeting of the Board of Management held on the
15th June 3013 and the recommendations given in the report of the Community Colleges
Review Committee dated November, 2012 finds that neither the High Powered Committee
nor the Review Committee talks about discontinuation of the existing Community Colleges.
The Committee would like to draw attention to the following term of reference of the High
Powered Committee:
-
to review the existing range of programmes and courses with particular reference
to the concern for quality assurance, viability of enrolment and the modes of
delivery in the context of the mandate as contained in the IGNOU Act and
recommend appropriate modifications necessary in their systems of delivery
including the advisability of the continuance of those which are not considered
viable or do not conform to the mandate of the University.
5.17 The Committee would also like to place on
observation/recommendation of the High Powered Committee:
record
the
following
“The Committee Colleges Scheme launched by the University in 2009 as a part of its
mission to contribute to skill development initiatives at the national level has yielded
valuable lessons. Based on this experience, the University should now formulate a new
Scheme structured with the statutory backing of the Act and Statutes. Till the Scheme is
restructured, no new institutions should be brought within the scope of the existing
Scheme of Community Colleges”
5.18 The Committee would also like to point out that the two main terms of reference of
the Review Committee were:
- to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing IGNOU Community Colleges
Scheme in the light of the findings and recommendations of the High Powered
Committee.
- to frame a revised scheme to establish Community Colleges Scheme, consistent
with the objectives of the National Skill Development Mission and National
Technical and Vocational Qualifications Framework.
5.19
The Committee finds it highly disturbing that the Board of Management has tried to
enforce the decision of discontinuation of Community Colleges Scheme in a very arbitrary
manner which was not recommended by either the High Powered Committee or the Review
Committee and yet citing it as their recommendation.
Committee's attention has been
drawn by one pertinent recording of the minutes of 118th Meeting which shows that Director
R&D was the Chairman of the Review Committee, whereas Prof. Vinay Kumar Pathak, Vice
Chancellor, V.M Open University, Kota was the Chairman of the Review Committee. It is
also disturbing that in the presence of Prof. Vinay Kumar Pathak, Chairman of the Review
Committee in the 118th meeting of Board of Management, the Director, R&D was being
projected as the Chairman of the Review Committee. Committee's attention has also been
drawn by the 112th meeting of the Board of Management held on the 9th April, 2012, which
was attended by six members, one of them being the Joint Secretary of the Department
representing the Secretary. Quorum for the meeting of the Board of Management is six and
the Joint Secretary cannot be considered a full -fledged member in view of the statutory
provision. The Committee is of the firm view that a meeting being held without quorum that
too under the Chairmanship of the acting Vice-Chancellor goes against the prescribed
norms. Decisions taken during such a meeting are likely to be questioned.
5.20
The Review Committee had identified a number of drawbacks/shortcomings in the existing
Community Colleges Scheme which included:5.21
curriculum varying from college to college:
infrastructure, availability of teachers, labs, local needs, curriculum etc. not taken into
account by the Community Colleges.
broad functions of the Community College Examination Board not stipulated clearly.
composition of the Fee Fixation Committee does not cover any representative of the
Community College.
nomination of all the members of the Community Colleges Board by the
Chairperson/Secretary.
examination of the curriculum, creditisation by the Academic Committee not done
scientifically
no provision of seeking approval of IGNOU on the schedule of examinations etc.
in the initial phases, most of the Community Colleges registered without any
inspection.
processing of results, issue of Grade Cards is done by IGNOU, without any
involvement in paper setting etc.
monitoring mechanism not effective enough
The Committee had the opportunity to go through the Manual for Community
Colleges, 2011 which contains full details relating to regulatory bodies of Community
Colleges, creditisation, student registration, examination, training programmes at
Community Colleges, monitoring mechanism and some general guidelines. The Committee
finds that all the drawbacks/shortcomings identified by the Review Committee stand fully
covered in the Manual of the existing Community Colleges.
If that was not
implemented/enforced in the right earnest, the fault lies mainly with the University,
notwithstanding the responsibility of individual Community Colleges. Not only this, there
was a specified monitoring mechanism involving Headquarters/Regional Centres.
5.22
The Committee made an attempt to analyse the manual of the pervious Community
Colleges Scheme and the proposed Community Colleges Scheme. The Committee finds no major
difference between the two Schemes. These are only two exceptions. One is that a Community
College Advisory Council under the chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU has been
suggested which is mandated to meet at least twice in a year. The other difference is that under
the previous Scheme, Community Colleges were to conduct Academic Programmes generally
through face-to-face mode. Under the revised scheme, programmes are to be offered through
Open and Distance Learning.
5.23
The Committee is also aware of the fact that the primary mandate of IGNOU is
introduction and promotion of Open University and distance education systems. However, there
are several provisions that do not restrain the University from using classroom engagement as a
means to fulfil its mandate. The Committee has been informed that there are as many as 164
programmes in the face-to-face mode on IGNOU campus and at partner institutions across the
country.
5.24
The Committee would like to point out that the Scheme of Community Colleges was
launched in July, 2009. The programme had run for about two years only. It was too short
a time to take a final view about the status of a Scheme, especially keeping in view the level of
pre-introduction exercise undertaken by the University. The reasonable approach would
have been to suggest measures for strengthening the Scheme. The Committee strongly feels
that this was the mandate of the High Powered Committee also which had very rightfully
adhered to the same. It had nowhere recommended scrapping the Scheme. Instead, it had
recommended restructuring of the Scheme by having an appropriate statutory mechanism
for the Scheme along with certain other modifications. The only restriction placed by the
Committee was that no new colleges should be admitted to the Scheme of Community
Colleges till such restructuring.
5.25
The Committee also takes note of the following decisions of the Screening Committee:
First meeting held on the 27th December, 2012
-
in respect of 14 colleges, the Committee recommended release of all the pending
results of these colleges till December, 2011 Term and Examination.
In view of some of these colleges having followed the prescribed procedures, results of
June 2012 TEE may be declared.
Results of June, 2012 TEE be obtained from all colleges and release of results of
colleges which have followed the procedure.
Second meeting held on the 15th February, 2013
-
recommended release of pending results of 58 colleges till the December, 2011
examinations.
recommended 23 colleges who had followed all procedures and taken admission till
January, 2012 cycle should be allowed to conduct examination.
also decided that the existing students whose admission were withhold in the light of
the 113th BoM decision need to be allowed to complete the programmes.
Third meeting held on the 15th March, 2013
-
5.26
recommended declaration of pending results upto December, 2011 in respect of 18
colleges.
Recommended declaration of pending results upto December, 2011 in respect of 44
colleges.
Also recommended declaration of pending results upto December, 2011 in respect of
18+44 colleges.
recommended declaration of pending results where they have been placed on the
website or subsequently removed after the decision of BoM at its 113th meeting held on
31.5.2012.
The Committee notes that the Board of Management in its meeting held on the 15th June,
2013 accepted the following recommendations of the Review Committee:
-
5.27
the existing Community Colleges Scheme being not strictly covered under the IGNOU
Act/Statute/Ordinances, it may be discontinued and the existing students admitted till
January, 2012 may be allowed to complete their Programmes of studies.
Launch of a new Community Colleges Scheme to be operationalized under a
Statute/ordinance of the University.
However, the Committee is surprised to note that in their correspondence with the
Community Colleges, the University failed to forward the decisions taken by the Board of
Management.
Instead, they were informed that based on the High Powered Committee Report,
the Scheme has been kept in abeyance on 20 June, 2012 for six months. This was followed by a
mail sent by the University on 24th June, 2013 that the Scheme had been discontinued and pending
results of 146 colleges will be declared/completed that too till December, 2011 only. Since then,
University Website has been closed and there are no communication channels open between the
University and Community Colleges/Students.
5.28
The Committee found it surprising that out of the 532 Community Colleges, only 146
Colleges could be certified by the Screening Committee as functioning in accordance with the
prescribed norms and guidelines. Committee's attention was drawn by the minutes of the Review
Committee meeting held on the 7th November, 2012, which mentioned that out of the 620
Community Colleges registered, IGNOU had to de-register 88 Community Colleges in April,
2011. In addition, 257 Community Colleges though registered did not enrol any students so far.
Thus, functional Community Colleges numbered only 275. The Review Committee had also taken
note of the fact that only 172 Community Colleges had submitted Review Reports with the
remaining 103 Community Colleges failing to submit Review Reports.
5.29
The Committee finds it rather surprising that the impression being given is that there
were 532 Community colleges, with majority of them not adhering to the prescribed format.
However, the factual position was that as many as 257 Community Colleges had failed to
enrol any student and thus could not be considered functional in the real sense. Out of the
remaining 275 functional Community Colleges, 172 Colleges had submitted that review
report. With respect to 103 colleges failing to do so, responsibility lies on the IGNOU
nominees also who could not pursue compliance of this requirement.
The Committee
strongly feels that even at this late stage, this issue can be taken up with the concerned
colleges.
5.30
Committee’s attention has also been drawn to a number of cases pending in various
High Courts where directions have been given to the University to keep the 20 th June, 2012
IGNOU letter in abeyance and conduct examinations of ongoing programmes and declare
results accordingly. From the above, the Committee can only infer that the entire issue of
Community Colleges Scheme has been mishandled in every conceivable manner. After an
extensive exercise, a Scheme is launched by a premier Central University involving highest
authorities in the higher education sector. A manual giving details of all aspects of the
Scheme is made available.
Community Colleges are duly registered by the IGNOU
authorities. Presence of IGNOU nominee is in all the bodies of the Community Colleges.
There is also a monitoring mechanism. Hardly two years are over and the University has
suddenly a change of heart. Initiative is taken to review the Scheme. A High powered
Committee is duly constituted which simply recommends restructuring of certain aspects
and till then no new institution should be brought under the Scheme.
The Review
Committee approves a revised Scheme which is broadly speaking the earlier scheme only
with only two exceptions.
This is followed by Screening Committee certifying 146
Community Colleges functioning as per the prescribed norms. It is pertinent to note that at
the ground level, there were only 275 functional Community Colleges, out of which only 172
Community Colleges had complied with the directive of furnishing Review Reports. Logical
course would have been to modify the Scheme as recommended by the High Powered
Committee and permit these 172 Community Colleges to continue and the remaining 103
colleges given a last chance.
5.31
The Committee is also of the view that the issue of Community Colleges Scheme
should have been placed first before the Academic Council, the body authorised to take
policy decisions. The Committee is not aware about the background of this development.
But the manner in which meetings of the Board of Management were conducted, that too
under the Chairmanship of acting Vice-Chancellor, one can not expect objectivity of
decisions.
5.32
The Committee finds it very strange that although the Board of Management in its
meeting held on the 15th June, 2013 had accepted the recommendation of the Review
Committee that existing students admitted till January, 2012 may be allowed to complete
their programmes of studies, nothing has moved forward since then. This is evident from
the submissions made by the representatives of Community Colleges appearing before the
Committee. Even the High Court directives have been ignored. It is high time that the
recommendations made by the Review Committee/ Screening Committee are implemented in
letter and spirit. The Committee would also like to draw the attention of both the ViceChancellor, IGNOU and the Secretary, Higher Education to the assurance given to it that
interest of each and every student stood fully protected.
5.33
It was on the 15th June, 2013, that the Board of Management gave its approval to the
launch of new Community Colleges Scheme to be operationalised under a Statute/Ordinance
of the University. It will be a year very soon, since this approval was given by the Board of
Management. However, no information has been forthcoming from either the University or
the Department about any progress made in this direction so far. The Committee fails to
comprehend the reasons for this undue delay-in implementing a decision taken by the Board
of Management. The University has shown undue haste in scrapping a Scheme which was in
its initial years of existence. But the logical follow-up action which should be based on the
recommendations made by the High Powered Committee, Review Committee and the
Screening Committee and also the ground reality still remains on paper. The Committee
would like to emphasise that the Community Colleges functioning as per the norms need to
be permitted to continue with appropriate modifications, wherever necessary.
5.34
The Committee expresses its sense of extreme unhappiness at the turn of events. Not
only the Board of Management is properly constituted with respect to two-three meetings,
acting Vice-Chancellor is taking major policy decisions that too not in consonance with the
High Powered Committee recommendations. Even those decisions remain to be
implemented. Unfortunately, in the entire process, the innocent students have become the
victims for no fault of theirs. What is more disturbing is the role of the nodal Department
which is supposed to uphold all the Government directives and statutory provisions. The
Committee has been given to understand that an internal Committee has been constituted to
fix the responsibility in the case. However, full details about this Committee along with the
time-limit by when this Committee has to give its report are not known to the Committee.
5.35
The Committee is of the firm view that it is high time that the entire issue is put to a
thorough probe by an independent authority. The Inquiry Committee so appointed should
examine the issues which may inter-alia include the appointment of acting Vice-Chancellor,
powers of acting Vice-Chancellor vis-a-vis regular Vice-Chancellor, viability of decisions
taken by the acting Vice-Chancellor on crucial policies/schemes of the University, dissolution
of the Distance Education Council, discontinuation of the Community Colleges Scheme, not
implementing fully the recommendations of the Madhav Menon Committee, the High
Powered Committee and the Review Committee on Community Colleges; ignoring the High
Court directives with regard to Community Colleges and not protecting the interest of
students.
MISCELLANEOUS
6.1
The Committee had the opportunity to interact with the IGNOU Teachers’ Association. A
very pertinent issue raised by the Association was the discrimination meted out to academics of the
University. It was clarified that there were teachers who did the academic functioning, preparing
material audio video etc. Academics were the people of the Regional Centres who engaged the
students in the teaching-learning process. As per the IGNOU Act, both teachers and academics
were similar in their status, their service conditions were similar and their recruitment was also
similar. However, in the Sixth Pay Commission, academics generally from library and physical
instructions have not been treated at par with teachers. As a result IGNOU academics, in spite of
coming through the same selection route and performing the some academic functions have been
denied the third promotion and also retirement at 65 years available to teachers of all Central
Universities.
6.2
The Committee is of the view that the issue of disparity between teachers of IGNOU
and academics at Regional Centres needs to be examined in the right perspective and final
decision taken in the matter without any delay.
6.3
In conclusion, the Committee would like to emphasize that IGNOU is a Central
University established under an Act of Parliament. Nobody can deny the fact that all the
Central Universities are autonomous and enjoy an independent status. But it is also equally
true that the University is governed by the Act and Statutes and has to function in
accordance with that. It would have been in the fitness of things had this aspect was adhered
to in every respect in the context of IGNOU.
********
RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS AT A GLANCE
III
APPOINTMENT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
The Committee is aware that the terms of all the four Pro-Vice-Chancellors were co-
terminus with the then Vice-Chancellor. The Committee would, however, like to point out
that this situation arising on the completion of the term of the Vice-Chancellor on the 20th
October, 2011 could have been easily anticipated. The Committee was given to understand
that in the past the charge of Vice-Chancellor was always handed over to the senior most
Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The Committee would like to point-out that Statute 1(6) provides that
in the event of the office of the Vice-Chancellor becoming vacant, the senior-most Pro-ViceChancellor shall perform the duties of Vice-Chancellor and if there is no Pro-ViceChancellor, the senior most Professor from amongst the Directors of School shall perform
the functions of Vice-Chancellor. Statute 3(2) provides that the term of Pro-Vice-Chancellor
shall be decided by the Board of Management and shall not exceed three years or until the
expiration of the term of Vice-Chancellor. Second proviso to Statute 3(2) clearly mentions
that a Pro-Vice-Chancellor while performing the functions of the Vice-Chancellor under
Statute 1(6) shall continue in office notwithstanding the expiry of his term as Pro-ViceChancellor. The Committee is of the view that there is an element of ambiguity in these two
Statutes as they are liable to be interpreted either way. The Committee, accordingly,
recommends that Statute 1(6) and 3(2) need to be reviewed and amended suitably to avoid
such occurrences in future. The Committee is also not very happy with the role played by
the Ministry. It could have advised the University in the right perspective taking note of the
relevant issues, past practice and the emerging scenario.
(Para 3.8)
The documents made available to the Committee by the witnesses and also its
interaction with them make it abundantly clear that the issue of handing over the charge of
Vice-Chancellor to the rightful claimant was not handled in a judicious and objective
manner, in accordance with the statutory provisions. On the contrary, every effort was
made to delay not only the specific statutory requirements but also to totally ignore the wellestablished practice of similar occasions in the past. This raises very disturbing issues,
especially in the backdrop of the matter already being sub-judice.
The Committee is
particularly disturbed by the role played by the Department in the entire affair. It seems
that both the Department and the acting Vice-Chancellor, who apparently had a vested
interest, were together in misleading the High Court.
The process of distorting facts
continues even now when the persistent queries from the Committee have elicited very
categorical denial from both the Vice-Chancellor and the Secretary, Higher Education. Had
it not been the clarifications/details supported by documents by the two witnesses, the
Committee would also have simply been misled.
(Para 3.12)
The Committee also finds it very strange that the acting Vice-Chancellor could go
ahead by taking decisions on crucial policies/schemes of the University when five nominees of
the Visitor were to be nominated. Three meetings of the BoM were held when five nominees
of the Visitor were yet to be nominated. A perusal of the minutes of the meetings of the
Board of Management confirms the observations of the Committee. The fact remains that
where the authority is entrusted with the acting charge he should handle only routine affairs.
The Committee finds no justification for non-adherence to this well-established and justified
practice.
(Para 3.13)
The Committee takes objection to the contention of the Secretary that due to preoccupation of the Secretary, Joint Secretary concerned was representing him in the Board of
Management meetings of IGNOU and this has been the practice as in the case of other
similar bodies. The Committee would like to point out that all the statutory provisions are
required to be adhered to in the true spirit. The Committee would appreciate that as
assured by the Secretary, amendments are going to be made in all the relevant Acts. Till
then, it should be ensured that all such meetings are attended by the Secretary.
(Para 3.15)
IV
DISSOLUTION OF THE DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL (DEC)
The Committee notes that the Distance Education Council, which was mandated to
regulate distance education in the country, had come into existence as an authority of
IGNOU under Statute 28 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 of the
IGNOU Act, 1985. The Committee does not find any merit or justification in the kind of
initiative taken by the Department in dissolving a statutory body functioning since 1991.
The Committee is well aware that the Delhi University had challenged the authority of DEC
to regulate their ODL programmes in the Delhi High Court. But it is also equally true that
the Madhav Menon Committee, while suggesting measures to regulate the standards of
education being imparted through distance mode, had also recommended creation of a
separate regulatory authority, the Distance Education Council for regulating distance
education by a separate Act of Parliament. The Committee fails to understand the element
of urgency behind the move of the Department to entrust UGC and AICTE to perform the
regulatory responsibilities for Open and Distance Learning mode also. The Committee
would like to point out that nowhere in the Acts governing UGC and AICTE, responsibility
of regulating distance education has been entrusted to these authorities. The argument of
the Department that the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 envisaging subsuming of
all existing regulators also does not hold ground. The Committee would like to point out that
even this proposed legislation has left untouched the Distance Education Council. Not only
this, the Committee in its Report on the Bill had strongly advocated the need for having an
independent statutory authority for distance education.
(Para 4.4)
The Committee observes that the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 is yet to
be passed by the Parliament. Recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee
for retaining the bodies like UGC, AICTE and NCTE and also DEC as an independent
statutory authority is bound to be reflected in the proposed legislation. Not only this, what is
more surprising is that the proposal for dissolution of DEC was strongly resisted by the
Council as well as the Board of Management of IGNOU. The minutes of the meetings of the
Board of Management are self-revealing where majority view was strongly against such a
move. Arguments put forth were substantive enough and did not deserve to be ignored. The
Committee is constrained to observe that the views of the Department's nominee prevailed
upon the majority of members representing the University and having the first hand
experience about the role and mandate of DEC. A Central University is considered to be an
autonomous body having well-defined powers and functions and fully authorised to act
accordingly. But the meeting of the Board indicated very obviously that the University was
destined to follow the diktat of the Department, notwithstanding the viability of the move.
The Committee expresses its serious concern on the entire issue.
4.7
(Para 4.6)
The Committee would also like to point out that the writ petition of the Delhi
University before the Delhi High Court challenging the status of DEC as an authority of
IGNOU could have been easily addressed by giving the status of an independent statutory
authority as recommended by the Madhav Menon Committee and by the Committee on
HRD in its Report on the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011.
(Para 4.7)
V
DISCONTINUANCE OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES SCHEME
The Committee, while making a comparison of the High Powered Committee Report
dated May, 2012, the Minutes of the 118th Meeting of the Board of Management held on the
15th June 3013 and the recommendations given in the report of the Community Colleges
Review Committee dated November, 2012 finds that neither the High Powered Committee
nor the Review Committee talks about discontinuation of the existing Community Colleges.
The Committee would like to draw attention to the following term of reference of the High
Powered Committee:
-
to review the existing range of programmes and courses with particular reference
to the concern for quality assurance, viability of enrolment and the modes of
delivery in the context of the mandate as contained in the IGNOU Act and
recommend appropriate modifications necessary in their systems of delivery
including the advisability of the continuance of those which are not considered
viable or do not conform to the mandate of the University.
(Para 5.16)
The Committee would also like to place on
observation/recommendation of the High Powered Committee:
record
the
following
“The Committee Colleges Scheme launched by the University in 2009 as a part of its
mission to contribute to skill development initiatives at the national level has yielded
valuable lessons. Based on this experience, the University should now formulate a new
Scheme structured with the statutory backing of the Act and Statutes. Till the Scheme is
restructured, no new institutions should be brought within the scope of the existing
Scheme of Community Colleges”
(Para 5.17)
The Committee would also like to point out that the two main terms of reference of
the Review Committee were:
- to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing IGNOU Community Colleges
Scheme in the light of the findings and recommendations of the High Powered
Committee.
- to frame a revised scheme to establish Community Colleges Scheme, consistent
with the objectives of the National Skill Development Mission and National
Technical and Vocational Qualifications Framework.
(Para 5.18)
The Committee finds it highly disturbing that the Board of Management has tried to
enforce the decision of discontinuation of Community Colleges Scheme in a very arbitrary
manner which was not recommended by either the High Powered Committee or the Review
Committee and yet citing it as their recommendation.
Committee's attention has been
drawn by one pertinent recording of the minutes of 118th Meeting which shows that Director
R&D was the Chairman of the Review Committee, whereas Prof. Vinay Kumar Pathak, Vice
Chancellor, V.M Open University, Kota was the Chairman of the Review Committee. It is
also disturbing that in the presence of Prof. Vinay Kumar Pathak, Chairman of the Review
Committee in the 118th meeting of Board of Management, the Director, R&D was being
projected as the Chairman of the Review Committee. Committee's attention has also been
drawn by the 112th meeting of the Board of Management held on the 9th April, 2012, which
was attended by six members, one of them being the Joint Secretary of the Department
representing the Secretary. Quorum for the meeting of the Board of Management is six and
the Joint Secretary cannot be considered a full -fledged member in view of the statutory
provision. The Committee is of the firm view that a meeting being held without quorum that
too under the Chairmanship of the acting Vice-Chancellor goes against the prescribed
norms. Decisions taken during such a meeting are likely to be questioned.
(Para 5.19)
The Committee had the opportunity to go through the Manual for Community
Colleges, 2011 which contains full details relating to regulatory bodies of Community
Colleges, creditisation, student registration, examination, training programmes at
Community Colleges, monitoring mechanism and some general guidelines. The Committee
finds that all the drawbacks/shortcomings identified by the Review Committee stand fully
covered in the Manual of the existing Community Colleges.
If that was not
implemented/enforced in the right earnest, the fault lies mainly with the University,
notwithstanding the responsibility of individual Community Colleges. Not only this, there
was a specified monitoring mechanism involving Headquarters/Regional Centres.
(Para 5.21)
The Committee would like to point out that the Scheme of Community Colleges was
launched in July, 2009. The programme had run for about two years only. It was too short
a time to take a final view about the status of a Scheme, especially keeping in view the level of
pre-introduction exercise undertaken by the University. The reasonable approach would
have been to suggest measures for strengthening the Scheme. The Committee strongly feels
that this was the mandate of the High Powered Committee also which had very rightfully
adhered to the same. It had nowhere recommended scrapping the Scheme. Instead, it had
recommended restructuring of the Scheme by having an appropriate statutory mechanism
for the Scheme along with certain other modifications. The only restriction placed by the
Committee was that no new colleges should be admitted to the Scheme of Community
Colleges till such restructuring.
(Para 5.24)
The Committee finds it rather surprising that the impression being given is that there
were 532 Community colleges, with majority of them not adhering to the prescribed format.
However, the factual position was that as many as 257 Community Colleges had failed to
enrol any student and thus could not be considered functional in the real sense. Out of the
remaining 275 functional Community Colleges, 172 Colleges had submitted that review
report. With respect to 103 colleges failing to do so, responsibility lies on the IGNOU
nominees also who could not pursue compliance of this requirement.
The Committee
strongly feels that even at this late stage, this issue can be taken up with the concerned
colleges.
(Para 5.29)
Committee’s attention has also been drawn to a number of cases pending in various
High Courts where directions have been given to the University to keep the 20th June, 2012
IGNOU letter in abeyance and conduct examinations of ongoing programmes and declare
results accordingly. From the above, the Committee can only infer that the entire issue of
Community Colleges Scheme has been mishandled in every conceivable manner. After an
extensive exercise, a Scheme is launched by a premier Central University involving highest
authorities in the higher education sector. A manual giving details of all aspects of the
Scheme is made available.
Community Colleges are duly registered by the IGNOU
authorities. Presence of IGNOU nominee is in all the bodies of the Community Colleges.
There is also a monitoring mechanism. Hardly two years are over and the University has
suddenly a change of heart. Initiative is taken to review the Scheme. A High powered
Committee is duly constituted which simply recommends restructuring of certain aspects
and till then no new institution should be brought under the Scheme.
The Review
Committee approves a revised Scheme which is broadly speaking the earlier scheme only
with only two exceptions.
This is followed by Screening Committee certifying 146
Community Colleges functioning as per the prescribed norms. It is pertinent to note that at
the ground level, there were only 275 functional Community Colleges, out of which only 172
Community Colleges had complied with the directive of furnishing Review Reports. Logical
course would have been to modify the Scheme as recommended by the High Powered
Committee and permit these 172 Community Colleges to continue and the remaining 103
colleges given a last chance.
(Para 5.30)
The Committee is also of the view that the issue of Community Colleges Scheme
should have been placed first before the Academic Council, the body authorised to take
policy decisions. The Committee is not aware about the background of this development.
But the manner in which meetings of the Board of Management were conducted, that too
under the Chairmanship of acting Vice-Chancellor, one can not expect objectivity of
decisions.
(Para 5.31)
The Committee finds it very strange that although the Board of Management in its
meeting held on the 15th June, 2013 had accepted the recommendation of the Review
Committee that existing students admitted till January, 2012 may be allowed to complete
their programmes of studies, nothing has moved forward since then. This is evident from
the submissions made by the representatives of Community Colleges appearing before the
Committee. Even the High Court directives have been ignored. It is high time that the
recommendations made by the Review Committee/ Screening Committee are implemented in
letter and spirit. The Committee would also like to draw the attention of both the ViceChancellor, IGNOU and the Secretary, Higher Education to the assurance given to it that
interest of each and every student stood fully protected.
(Para 5.32)
It was on the 15th June, 2013, that the Board of Management gave its approval to the
launch of new Community Colleges Scheme to be operationalised under a Statute/Ordinance
of the University. It will be a year very soon, since this approval was given by the Board of
Management. However, no information has been forthcoming from either the University or
the Department about any progress made in this direction so far. The Committee fails to
comprehend the reasons for this undue delay-in implementing a decision taken by the Board
of Management. The University has shown undue haste in scrapping a Scheme which was in
its initial years of existence. But the logical follow-up action which should be based on the
recommendations made by the High Powered Committee, Review Committee and the
Screening Committee and also the ground reality still remains on paper. The Committee
would like to emphasise that the Community Colleges functioning as per the norms need to
be permitted to continue with appropriate modifications, wherever necessary.
(Para 5.33)
The Committee expresses its sense of extreme unhappiness at the turn of events. Not
only the Board of Management is properly constituted with respect to two-three meetings,
acting Vice-Chancellor is taking major policy decisions that too not in consonance with the
High Powered Committee recommendations. Even those decisions remain to be
implemented. Unfortunately, in the entire process, the innocent students have become the
victims for no fault of theirs. What is more disturbing is the role of the nodal Department
which is supposed to uphold all the Government directives and statutory provisions. The
Committee has been given to understand that an internal Committee has been constituted to
fix the responsibility in the case. However, full details about this Committee along with the
time-limit by when this Committee has to give its report are not known to the Committee.
(Para 5.34)
The Committee is of the firm view that it is high time that the entire issue is put to a
thorough probe by an independent authority. The Inquiry Committee so appointed should
examine the issues which may inter-alia include the appointment of acting Vice-Chancellor,
powers of acting Vice-Chancellor vis-a-vis regular Vice-Chancellor, viability of decisions
taken by the acting Vice-Chancellor on crucial policies/schemes of the University, dissolution
of the Distance Education Council, discontinuation of the Community Colleges Scheme, not
implementing fully the recommendations of the Madhav Menon Committee, the High
Powered Committee and the Review Committee on Community Colleges; ignoring the High
Court directives with regard to Community Colleges and not protecting the interest of
students.
(Para 5.35)
MISCELLANEOUS
6.2
The Committee is of the view that the issue of disparity between teachers of IGNOU
and academics at Regional Centres needs to be examined in the right perspective and final
decision taken in the matter without any delay.
6.3
(Para 6.2)
In conclusion, the Committee would like to emphasize that IGNOU is a Central
University established under an Act of Parliament. Nobody can deny the fact that all the
Central Universities are autonomous and enjoy an independent status. But it is also equally
true that the University is governed by the Act and Statutes and has to function in
accordance with that. It would have been in the fitness of things had this aspect was adhered
to in every respect in the context of IGNOU.
********
(Para 6.3)
_____________________________________
MINUTES
_____________________________________
IX
NINTH MEETING
The Committee on Human Resource Development met at 3.00 p.m. on Wednesday, the
19 February, 2014 in Committee Room ‘A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New
Delhi.
th
MEMBERS PRESENT
RAJYA SABHA
1.
2.
3.
4.
Shri Birender Singh
Shri Avinash Rai Khanna
Shri Baishnab Parida
Shri Tarun Vijay
-
Chairman
LOK SABHA
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Shri P.K. Biju
Dr. Charles Dias
Shri Kapil Muni Karwariya
Shri Virender Kashyap
Shri N. Peethambara Kurup
Capt. Jai Narain Prasad Nishad
Ms. Ramya Divya Spandana
LIST OF WITNESS
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Prof. M. Aslam, Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU
Prof. S.M.S. Chaudhary, Registrar (Admn.)
Prof. Ravindra Kumar, Director, ACD
Dr. S. Mahapatra, Director, RSD
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Shri Ashok Thakur, Secretary
Prof. Ved Prakash, Chairman, University Grants Commission;
Shri Amit Khare, Joint Secretary
Shri Praveen Prakash, Joint Secretary
SECRETARIAT
Smt.
Shri
Shri
Smt.
Smt.
Vandana Garg, Additional Secretary
N.S. Walia, Director
Arun Sharma, Joint Director
Himanshi Arya, Assistant Director
Harshita Shankar, Assistant Director
2.
At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the meeting of the Committee
convened to consider and adopt the 262nd Report of Sub-Committee- II on the “Functioning of
National Sports Federations” and to hear the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU and the Secretary,
Department of Higher Education on the functioning of IGNOU .
3.
The Committee first considered and adopted the 262nd Report on the ‘Functioning of
National Sports Federations’. Thereafter, the Committee heard the views of the Vice-Chancellor,
IGNOU and other officials on the functioning of IGNOU. The members raised some queries
which were replied to by the Vice-Chancellor and other officials of IGNOU.
4.
Thereafter, the Committee heard the views of the Secretary, Department of Higher
Education and other officials on the functioning of IGNOU. The members raised some queries
which were replied to by the Secretary.
5.
A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.
6.
The Committee then adjourned at 5.30 p.m.
X
TENTH MEETING
The Committee on Human Resource Development met at 11.00 a.m. on Wednesday, the
28th March, 2014 in Committee Room ‘A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RAJYA SABHA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Shri Birender Singh
Shri Rama Chandra Khuntia
Shri Baishnab Parida
Chaudhary Munavver Saleem
Shri Tarun Vijay
Dr. Janardhan Waghmare
Chairman
LOK SABHA
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Smt. Helen Davidson
Dr. Charles Dias
Shri Kapil Muni Karwariya
Shri Prasanta Kumar Majumdar
Capt. Jai Narain Prasad Nishad
LIST OF WITNESS
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
(i)
Prof. B.S. Saraswat, President
(ii)
Dr. V.P. Rupam, Vice President
(iii)
Ms. Poonam Bhushan, Secretary
(iv)
Dr. Kamal Vagrecha, Treasurer
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
(v)
Shri K.P.S. Abid Thangal, Pravasi IGNOU Community College, Kerala
(vi)
Shri Rajeev KR, Principal, JDT Islam IGNOU Community College, Calicut, Kerala
(vii) Shri Basil KA, Director, Al Jamia IGNOU Community College, Mallapuram, Kerala
(viii) Dr. K.V.A. Naidu, Principal, GMR Varalakshmi IGNOU Community College, Srikakulum,
Andhra Pradesh
(ix) Dr. M. Purushottam Rao, Coordinator, GMR Varalakshmi IGNOU Community College,
Srikakulum, Andhra Pradesh
(x)
Shri Sidappa Agarakhed, Chairman, Bijapur Rural Community College, Bijapur
(xi) Shri Shivendra Kumar, Coordinator, Tecnia Institute, New Delhi
(xii) Shri Sita Ram Sharma, CIMT Community College, Rewari, Haryana
(xiii) Shri Vijay Bhatt, Principal, IGNOU-HIFEED Community College, Dehradun, Uttrakhand
(xiv) Shri Suket Sharma, HTS, Community College, Hissar
FORMER IGNOU REPRESENTATIVES
(xv) Prof. P.R. Ramanujam, Former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU
(xvi) Dr. R. Sudarsan, Dy. Director, Planning Commission, IGNOU
SECRETARIAT
Smt.
Shri
Shri
Smt.
Smt.
Vandana Garg, Additional Secretary
N.S. Walia, Director
Arun Sharma, Joint Director
Himanshi Arya, Assistant Director
Harshita Shankar, Assistant Director
2.
At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the meeting of the Committee
convened to hear the representatives of IGNOU Teachers’ Association and Community Colleges
from the States of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Delhi, Haryana and Uttrakhand and former
Pro-Vice-Chancellor of IGNOU on the Functioning of IGNOU.
3.
The Committee first heard the views of the representatives of IGNOU Teachers
Association on the overall functioning of IGNOU including the challenges faced by it, the
programmes and courses being offered to students and the contribution of the Association in the
decision making as well as in the promotion of education through distance learning and other
administrative matters. The members raised some queries which were replied to by the
representatives.
4.
Thereafter, the Committee heard the views of the representatives of Community Colleges
from the States of Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh on the issues relating to the overall
functioning of IGNOU, status of functioning of Community Colleges, hardship faced by the
Community Colleges and the impact of the closure of Community Colleges on the students. The
members raised some queries which were replied to by the representatives
(The meeting was then adjourned for lunch).
5.
Thereafter, the Committee again assembled to hear the views of the Community Colleges
from the States of Delhi, Haryana and Uttrakhand on various issues relating to the functioning of
IGNOU as well as the functioning of Community Colleges problems being faced by them and
impact of the closing of the Community Colleges on the students. The Committee then heard the
views of Prof. B.R. Ramanujam, former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU and his colleague on the
functioning of IGNOU, its role and achievement in imparting education through distance learning
mode, impact of its outreach on student community. The members raised some queries which
were replied to by the representatives.
6.
A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.
7.
The Committee then adjourned at 4.30 p.m.
XI
ELEVENTH MEETING
The Committee on Human Resource Development met at 11.00 a.m. on Friday, the 25 th
April, 2014 in Committee Room ‘A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RAJYA SABHA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Shri Birender Singh
Shri A.B. Bernard
Shri Baishnab Parida
Chaudhary Munavver Saleem
Shri Tarun Vijay
Chairman
LOK SABHA
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Shri P.K. Biju
Smt. Helen Davidson
Dr. Charles Dias
Shri Prasanta Kumar Majumdar
Shri M.K. Raghavan
Shri M.I. Shanavas
SECRETARIAT
Smt.
Shri
Shri
Smt.
Smt.
Vandana Garg, Additional Secretary
N.S. Walia, Director
Arun Sharma, Joint Director
Himanshi Arya, Assistant Director
Harshita Shankar, Assistant Director
2.
At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members to the meeting of the Committee
convened to consider and adopt the draft 263rd Report of the Committee on the ‘Functioning of
IGNOU’.
3.
The Committee then considered the draft 263rd Report on the ‘Functioning of IGNOU’ and
adopted the Report with few modifications. The Committee also authorized the Chairman of the
Committee to present the Report to Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha since the Parliament was not
in session.
4.
The Committee then adjourned at 12.30 p.m. to meet again at 11. a.m. on 6th May, 2014.