Dear All What follows is the text of Dr Peter Ronald De Souza's letter which was the first pile of wood lit in the pyre of the greedy, unscrupulous, VC, Registrar, et al.
In the meanwhile the rumor is that the DHE engineered the downfall of the VC with whom there is no love lost, although he was the one who sent the letter to the University asking for the VC to be given an extension. And there are other rumors floating that the RSS did not want too many SB's in control of the Higher Education. And there are rumors that the three Principals who were given extensions may be revoked. And is it true that Reddy is supposed to be the Pro-VC? Kya sach kya jhoot? But the gossip circulating around is pretty juicy. Have fun. Best Augusto From: "Peter DeSouza" <[email protected] Date: 14 Oct 2015 8:57 am Subject: Re: Nineteenth Meeting (Special) of the Eighth Executive Council to be held on Thursday, 15th October, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. The Vice Chancellor, Chair Executive Council Goa University 13 October 2015 Dear Vice Chancellor, I have received the notice from the Registrar calling for a Special meeting to change the Statutes of Goa University. I have several comments to make regarding the opaque process that has been followed in the last few months with respect to the ‘succession process’ at Goa university. This issue of the ‘succession process’ has to be examined in detail because it concerns the two most important offices of Goa University, that of the Vice Chancellor and of the Registrar. Succession, conducted in a routine manner according to rules, you will agree is one of the most important features of a constitutional democracy. It enables us to strengthen the legitimacy of institutions and to establish the key principle that an institution is more important than a person however competent that person maybe. This has been the basis of managing succession to all key offices of the state, from the President of the Republic, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to the Chief of the Army, to the head of governments. Even a good Director General of CSIR has had to relinquish office when he reached the age of superannuation or when his contract period got over. One of the greatest achievements of Indian democracy is that it has established this principle of peaceful and orderly succession. Weak Chief Justices may follow great Chief Justices, but still the system appoints the former, or incompetent Chief Ministers may follow visionary Chief Ministers and yet they are welcomed into office. The system is prepared to face the costs of any incompetence only because it wishes to safeguard the integrity of the succession process. On no occasion has the argument been entertained that because the incumbent is competent, and maybe even exceptional, the rule of succession is to be set aside. The system, in fact, starts the process of preparing for the successor well in advance. There are no surprises, since dates of superannuation and dates of the appointment are known in advance. No special effort has to be made to remind the system to prepare the process of selecting a successor. No special meetings need to be called to change the rules and to alter the system to suit an incumbent. This has happened in places like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka and Russia to name just a few countries. These are not shining examples to follow. Indian democracy, in contrast, has remained steadfast in its adherence to the principle of succession according to rules. Except during the dark period of the Emergency when Mrs Gandhi changed the Constitution to suit her interests and to justify her declaration of Emergency. This is not a period we like to remember. Alas Goa University seeks to deviate from this hallowed tradition of routine and regular succession. The University administration deliberately lapsed in not preparing for succession, well in advance, to both offices. What had been done routinely in decades past, when we did have competent Vice-chancellors and registrars, has now become a matter of emergency. The university has been brought to a pass where special meetings have to be called to change the rules to favour the present incumbents. The deliberations in the Executive Council, of sending a name for the search committee to be constituted, and the declarations in the EC where incumbents have emphatically stated that they are determined to exit on the date when their contract comes to an end, are now sought to be nullified by the special meeting to enable the incumbent to continue. There is an urgency to the notice as if, were we to miss the date, the University would be in a grave crisis. The logic of the special meeting is to establish the principle that some persons are indispensable for Goa University and hence we should alter the rules of the system to make it possible for them to continue. By doing so their continuation will acquire a semblance of law. This I believe sets a dangerous precedent. Goa University has provisions to deal with such situations. It has done so in the past. But if, as is being implied, it is not robust enough to deal with the interregnum then the argument of the good work done in the last few years comes to nought since it appears that instead of strengthening the university we seem to have enfeebled it. It seems that it cannot deal with the exit of a competent VC. It seems that what we had done so well in the past, manage succession without any problems, is now too inadequate for us. If the indispensability of persons is the logic that prompts the proposed changes of the statute then we are led to the silly conclusion that the indispensable officers be allowed to continue till they choose to leave. They are just too indispensable. There is no guarantee that the next time around equally competent officers will be available. The principle of superannuation will, by this argument, by thrown into the dustbin. In fact the proposed changes seeks to do away with the superannuation age of 65 years. Not only is no age of superannuation specified but it also does not specify the maximum age at which a Vice Chancellor can enter office. In addition to my discontent on the above two counts, (i) the deliberate delay by the University in initiating the process of selecting a successor, and (ii) changing the succession rules, through emergency action, to suit the present incumbent, I have disquiet on some additional issues. They are mainly legal issues that need clarification. What implication does the recommended change have for the principle of superannuation which is so central to the government system? No superannuation age is mentioned in the proposed revision. The proposed change is in violation of the Goa University Amendment Act May 2006 Clause 15 (B) which places a bar on University and its authorities to make any statute dealing with retirement age or granting of any extension to any employee of the University. The agenda for the Special Meeting is hence in violation of the law as per 15b of the act. If changes are being recommended for the office of the VC, why should this not be extended to Principals, Deans, and Heads of Departments? The Equality principle of the Constitution requires that they too get the same benefit? Why should the VC only not be bound by the rule of superannuation and not these other ‘competent’ heads of sections and other institutions under Goa University? Let each office get a fixed term and not be bound by the principle of the age of superannuation. How does the proposed change align with the UGC rules, and MHRD guidelines, which spell out how a Vice Chancellor is to be chosen? What is the status of the appointment contract signed by the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor, where dates of exit are specified? Will it become null and void? In this case it should be seen as a fresh appointment. That would require us to initiate the regular process of selecting a VC. Is it being recommended that we bypass the regular process specified in the statutes if this is a fresh appointment? Can the initial appointment order be changed? If after five years we are in a similar situation as we are today, of an administration that has not initiated the process of selecting a successor, does it mean that the incumbent will continue till a successor is appointed, ie., beyond five years? What are the consequences of this decision? If the EC changes this statute should it also not change other statutes linked to it which specify that the senior most Dean or Professor will officiate in the interim period. Is there a maximum age at which a candidate can be considered for the office of the VC? Will a candidate at 64 years and 11 months be considered? In the light of my discontent on the University’s lethargy in initiating the succession process, and my expressed disquiet at the undermining the principles that govern the impersonal system we had followed so far, and my anxiety that we are violating the Act in its provision 15B, I must firmly vote against the proposed changes and against the emergency manner in which they are being brought. I am aware that some esteemed members of Council think this is being too procedural, that rules must not be an impediment to good work. This is a sentiment that was voiced at the last EC meeting where we recorded our appreciation at the outstanding work that you and your team have done. I had hoped that such accolades would be adequate recognition of a job well done but now I find myself being asked to consider a change of rules to suit your interests. I am afraid I cannot endorse the change. No reasoning is given for it. If it is necessary we can deliberate it at a routine meeting of the EC. Two special meeting do not have to be called to make your continuation possible. It is unfortunate that the good work done by both you and the registrar will be marked by this blemish of wanting to stay on in office and changing the rules, in an emergency meeting called for the purpose, to make it possible. I must confess my disappointment. I cannot attend the EC meeting since I have commitments in Shimla and the notice is too short. Please place my letter on the record and have it deliberated by the honourable members of the EC. Sincerely, Peter Ronald deSouza Member EC, Goa University Dr.S.Radhakrishnan Chair of the Rajya Sabha Member of the UPSC committee to review the Civil Services Examination.
