When Kapil Sibal was elevated to Cabinet rank and assigned the crucial portfolio of human resources development (HRD), many people had great expectations from him about reforms in the education sector — a sector that has suffered due to the misplaced priorities of some of his predecessors. Since Independence, education, perhaps, is the one issue which has had the largest number of commissions and committees for reforms. Therefore, a wealth of material is readily available for use by any minister with sound vision and reforming zeal. However, most who had expected substantial reforms from Mr Sibal were disappointed when he appeared to be in a haste to announce his plans for changes within a few weeks of taking charge. He did not devote adequate time to study why some reforms had got stuck in the past or proved to be counterproductive.
Above all, the new HRD minister, in his various statements on bringing about changes, appeared to have ignored the basic fact that in our federal system education is a state subject and that many state governments are very sensitive about any dilution in their constitutional responsibilities relating to education. Certain aspects pertaining to higher education have been included in the concurrent list in the Constitution, but very few among the larger and well-administered states in India would be willing to part with their responsibilities relating to appointment of vice-chancellors of state universities. Strong protests were audible when indications were given about the Centre taking the lead role in the selection and appointment of all vice-chancellors in the country.
Let us examine some of the reasons for resentment towards the idea of having one central panel of persons found eligible by the Centre for appointment as vice-chancellors.
No doubt that the intention behind this proposal was to ensure that the standards of qualification for the post of vice-chancellor were kept very high and the procedures for selection were transparent. However, adequate thought was not given to the problems involved in putting together such a national-level panel. Even under the present system of selection of vice-chancellors, when both the state administration and state governors, in their capacity as chancellors, are actively involved, the process takes about six months. If an all-India panel of prospective candidates is to be the source of all selections and appointments, it is bound to take much longer.
There is also no guarantee that the Central list will have enough qualified names on it to meet the special needs of certain state universities, like research on some of the ancient state languages.
I should mention here that some of us serving as governors had the opportunity to study the legislative procedures in different states when we were appointed as members of a committee of governors in 1996 by the then President Shankar Dayal Sharma to make recommendations on “the role of the governor as chancellor of universities”. I had the privilege of being appointed as its chairman. During the deliberations of this committee it was found that the methods of selection of candidates for consideration for appointment as vice-chancellors in state universities varied not only from state to state, but sometimes within the same state itself. Also, in the course of our work we found that some governors were not inclined to take up the responsibility of selecting vice-chancellors as governors, in their capacity as chancellors, were often being drawn into litigation even in junior courts. They felt that this would not be in keeping with the high prestige associated with the office of the governor.
In some states, in spite of clear provisions in the relevant University Act, the governments in power appeared to be keen that the governor should not have an active role in the constitution of the selection committee or the final appointment based on the recommendations of this committee. Sometimes differences had arisen between the state Cabinet and the chancellor on the appointment of vice-chancellors because of the insistence of certain states that the governor, even when s/he functions in his/her capacity as chancellor of a university, shall act only on the advice of the council of ministers. Such problems are likely to get aggravated if the selection is to be restricted to one central panel.
Apart from these considerations, a single panel valid for the whole of India may not be a desirable arrangement. After what has been revealed about the manner in which a very important central council, i.e. the Medical Council of India, had been functioning, the Central government should not be under the illusion that people will have implicit faith in the competence and fairness of all centrally-constituted councils.
What is required is to allow the states to manage the institutions of higher education according to the provisions of their own acts and not impose any rule or regulation which brings centralised administrative control. Based on the working and reputation of some of the universities in the states, one may claim that they are much better administered institutions than some of the centrally-managed higher education institutions. Certain states have evolved very good legislative procedures to manage their universities. I venture to suggest that the Maharashtra University Act, 1994, can provide some useful guidelines for states intending to introduce reforms in the system of selection and appointment of vice-chancellors.
Falling back on the experience of selection and appointment of vice-chancellors in some well administered states, I would suggest that it would be very useful for the chancellor if s/he interviews the candidates recommended by the selection panel of the state and personally assesses their relative suitability.
Some people may hold the view that all this will give the chancellor almost a full say in the selection of vice-chancellors and may lead to differences of opinion between the chancellor and the chief minister, particularly if the latter has the reputation of being a “strong administrator”. I should, however, add that during my fairly long tenure as governor in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, there was not a single case of any appointment made to the post of vice-chancellor that had been disagreed to by even “strong administrators” like Sharad Pawar or M. Karunanidhi.
Whether states adopt some of the good provisions of the Maharashtra University Act or not, it would be advisable that the idea of having an all-India selection panel for vice-chancellors is not pursued any further by the Centre in any shape or form.

P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra