The 2025 draft expands the eligibility criteria to include individuals not only from academia but also from senior roles in industry, public administration, public policy, and public sector undertakings.
Published Jan 10, 2025 | 8:45 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 10, 2025 | 8:45 PM
The draft regulations outline the minimum qualifications, experience, and accomplishments required for appointments and promotions across various academic and administrative roles in higher education institutions. (Facebook)
The Union government’s new draft regulations on the appointment and promotion of university teachers have sparked fresh protests from southern states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka.
Union Minister for Education Dharmendra Pradhan unveiled the draft regulations on January 6.
The contentious provisions, which revise the selection process for Vice-Chancellors, are being viewed as another attempt by the BJP-led Centre to encroach on the autonomy of non-BJP-ruled/allied states.
With recent years witnessing several clashes between state governments and Governors—who also serve as Chancellors—over Vice-Chancellor appointments, this latest move has reignited debates over federalism and the politicization of higher education.
For many in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, where the battlelines with the Governor on Vice-Chancellor appointments are already drawn, the draft regulations represent not just an administrative change but the deepening of ideological conflicts between the Centre and opposition-ruled states.
The draft regulations outline the minimum qualifications, experience, and accomplishments required for appointments and promotions across various academic and administrative roles in higher education institutions (HEIs).
These include positions such as Assistant Professors, Librarians, Directors of Physical Education, Principals, and Vice-Chancellors.
The key focus of the draft, however, lies in its revised selection process for Vice-Chancellors.
For the first time, the regulations provide a clear framework that empowers Chancellors or Visitors to constitute a three-member search-cum-selection committee for appointing Vice-Chancellors.
This change is set to redefine the appointment process, which has so far been managed by State governments.
According to the draft regulations, the selection of Vice-Chancellors will involve a national-level public notification.
Applications can be submitted through advertisements in newspapers, nominations, or a talent search conducted by the search-cum-selection committee.
The composition of this committee will be:
The regulations emphasise that non-implementation of these guidelines could lead to punitive actions, such as barring institutions from participating in UGC schemes or offering degree programmes.
The University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulation 2018, specifically Section 7.3, provides a detailed framework for appointing Vice-Chancellors, emphasising the need for individuals with exceptional academic qualifications, ethical standards, and leadership capabilities to lead universities.
This regulation underscores that the Vice-Chancellor must be a distinguished academician with the highest level of competence, integrity, and institutional commitment.
The candidate should have at least 10 years of experience as a Professor in a university or in a reputed research/academic administrative organization, demonstrating academic leadership.
The selection is conducted by a Search-cum-Selection Committee comprising 3-5 eminent individuals unconnected to the university.
The committee identifies candidates through public notification, nomination, or talent search and prepares a panel of 3-5 names, giving weightage to academic excellence, exposure to national and international higher education systems, and governance experience.
One committee member is nominated by the UGC Chairman for State, Private, and Deemed Universities.
The Visitor/Chancellor appoints the Vice-Chancellor from the panel recommended by the committee.
The 2018 UGC Regulation and the 2025 draft outline distinct criteria for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, with notable differences in the emphasis on academic background and eligibility.
In 2018, the regulation mandates that a Vice-Chancellor must be a distinguished academician, possessing at least 10 years of experience as a Professor in a university or an equivalent role in a reputed research or academic administrative organization.
It emphasises demonstrated academic leadership and academic excellence, ensuring the appointee has substantial exposure to higher education systems in India and abroad.
In contrast, the 2025 draft expands the eligibility criteria to include individuals not only from academia but also from senior roles in industry, public administration, public policy, and public sector undertakings.
While the draft still values academic qualifications and scholarly contributions, it allows for broader professional backgrounds, provided candidates have demonstrated leadership and a proven track record in their respective fields.
This significantly reduces the necessity of a purely academic background, which was a core requirement in 2018.
Chief Ministers of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka have voiced strong opposition to the draft regulations, criticising it as an infringement on states’ rights in higher education and a violation of federal principles.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan condemned the proposed regulations for granting Chancellors absolute authority in state-run universities, including the power to unilaterally form search committees for Vice-Chancellor appointments.
Calling this a direct attack on federalism and the Constitution’s Concurrent List, Vijayan alleged the draft was aimed at promoting centralisation, commercialisation, and communalisation of education.
He further criticised the dilution of qualifications for Vice-Chancellors as a ploy to appoint Sangh Parivar loyalists in key positions.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin echoed similar concerns, leading the state’s legislative assembly to unanimously pass a resolution urging the Union government to withdraw the draft regulations on 9 January.
The resolution, supported by all parties except the BJP, emphasised that granting Governors the power to form search committees undermined state autonomy.
Stalin accused the Centre of “capturing” universities funded by state governments and warned of its detrimental impact on Tamil Nadu’s inclusive education system rooted in social justice. He vowed to oppose the move through public engagement and legal action if necessary.
Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah also denounced the draft regulations for transferring the authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors from state governments to Governors, terming it an anti-federal and anti-Kannadiga move.
He highlighted that the proposed inclusion of private industry experts and policymakers in search committees undermined academic integrity and gave undue powers to Governors, creating friction between the Centre and states.
The draft regulations have thus sparked a united outcry from southern states, with leaders asserting their commitment to protecting federalism and educational autonomy.
At the same time, students’ bodies like the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) have also come out against the regulations, calling it an attempt to “centralise and corporatise” campuses.
While criticising the increased authority granted to Governors in selecting Vice-Chancellors, describing the process as opaque, they also opposed the inclusion of industry experts and public sector veterans in Vice-Chancellor appointments.
Their argument is that it would dilute academic quality by prioritizing corporate culture over academic credentials, research, and teaching experience.
However, while releasing the draft regulations, Dharmendra Pradhan lauded the UGC team for their efforts in shaping the Draft Regulations and Guidelines aligned with the spirit of NEP 2020.
He emphasised that these transformative reforms will spark innovation, inclusivity, and flexibility across all facets of higher education.
By empowering educators, elevating academic standards, and fostering dynamism, Pradhan expressed confidence that these guidelines will set the stage for unparalleled educational excellence.
State governments have opposed the draft regulations formalising governors’ authority to appoint search-cum-selection committees for Vice-Chancellor appointments, citing past experiences of conflict between Governors and Cabinets.
In Kerala, for instance, tensions escalated in 2022 when the state tabled University Laws (Amendment) Bills to amend governance laws for state universities and remove the then Governor, Arif Mohammed Khan, as Chancellor.
This move followed the Governor’s demand for the resignation of 11 Vice-Chancellors after the Supreme Court invalidated the appointment of the Kerala Technological University Vice-Chancellor for violating University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations.
The proposed legislations sought to replace the Governor with eminent academicians as Chancellors, thus transferring oversight of university administration to the state government.
However, President Droupadi Murmu withheld assent to the bill that sought to strip the Governor of the Chancellor’s role, reflecting the ongoing struggle between state governments and Governors over autonomy in higher education.
The draft regulations, by centralising power with Governors as Chancellors, could exacerbate these disputes.
Expanding the eligibility criteria for Vice-Chancellors to include individuals from industry, public administration, public policy, and public sector undertakings is being criticized as a covert strategy to appoint government allies to these prestigious academic positions, warns T Asaf Ali, former Director General of Prosecutions-Kerala.
“A Vice-Chancellor should ideally come from a strong academic background, free from political affiliations,” Ali emphasized to South First.
“This move jeopardizes the academic futures of countless students and risks turning universities into political battlegrounds,” he added.
Ali also highlighted the state government’s alleged backdoor appointments in universities, which he argues are equally detrimental.
“These parallel developments—politicized appointments and expanded criteria—threaten to erode the academic sanctity and excellence of our institutions,” he observed.
In short, the Union government’s draft regulations have reignited a long-standing debate over the balance of power in higher education, with southern states strongly opposing what they view as an encroachment on state autonomy and federal principles.
While the Centre argues that the guidelines align with the NEP 2020’s vision of inclusivity and innovation, critics fear they could undermine academic integrity and deepen ideological conflicts between the BJP-led government and opposition-ruled states.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
