Chapter 7: Regulatory Authorities

Introduction

A number of agencies are responsible for promoting and regulating educational institutions and for maintaining standards of education offered by them. As stated earlier, for school education, the regulatory authorities are the State Boards of Secondary Education and State Boards of Higher Secondary Education. In some States the function is performed by only one Board while in others there are two separate Boards. Besides, there are two central Boards-the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the Council for the Indian School Certification Examination (CISCE). Annexure 1 of Chapter 3 gives a list of Secondary Education Boards in all the States. At the post-secondary level, a number of regulatory authorities had been set up under the Acts of Parliament. This Chapter deals with these authorities.

University Grants Commission

Thus, the University Grants Commission (UGC) (Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.) is the apex body for the promotion of higher education. As stated in Chapter 2, the Constitution of India makes higher education as much a responsibility of the Centre as of the States. However, the coordination and determination of standards in institutions of higher education and research and of scientific and technical institutions is the exclusive responsibility of the Centre. In terms of this provision in the Constitution, the University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in 1956 by an Act of Parliament (University Grants Commission Act, 1956) as a statutory body for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities.

In addition, it inquires into the financial needs of universities and allocates and disburses grants to universities and colleges. The UGC serves as a vital link between the Union and State Governments and the institutions of higher learning. It also advises Central and State Governments of the measures necessary for the improvement of university education. The UGC Act, 1956 states that the general duty of the Commission is “to take, in consultation with the universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit, for the promotion and co-ordination of University education and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities…” (Section 12).

Grants given by the Central Government through the Commission are meant to develop the academic and research programmes in the universities. At present, 116 State Universities excluding agricultural, medical and technical universities are eligible to receive grants from the UGC. The Commission is, however, exclusively responsible for the maintenance and development of Central Universities.

Three Sections of the University grants Commission act deserve mention:

1.  Section 22 (1) states that “the right of conferring of granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees”.

2.  Section 23 of the Act provides that “no institution whether a corporate body or not, other than a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act, or State Act shall be entitled to have the word “University” associated with its name in any manner whatsoever”.

3.  Section 24 provides for a fine extending to one thousand rupees for any violation of the provisions of Section 22 and 23.

The UGC has established, in accordance with Section 12 CCC of UGC Act, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) to assess and accredit universities and colleges. (See Chapter 8)

Association of Indian Universities

Though not a regulatory agency, an important organisation associated with university education is the Association of Indian universities IAIU) (AIU House, 16 Kotla Marg, New Delhi-110002. Website: www.aiuweb.org). It was formed at the initiative of the government of India as the Inter-universities board (IUB) of India and Ceylon on March 23, 1925. It was registered under the Society Registration act, 1860 as an autonomous inter-university organisation. All universities and university level institutions in India are members of the AIU.

In addition, there is a provision for granting Associate Membership to universities of neighbouring countries. Universities are represented on the AIU by their Vice-Chancellors. It is a forum for university administration and academics to come together to exchange views and discuss matters of common concern.

Among the major objectives of the AIU are: coordinating the work of universities, establishing equivalence of degrees by Indian and foreign universities, assisting universities in obtaining recognition for their degrees, diplomas and examinations from other universities, Indian as well as foreign, establishing and maintaining a sports organisation for promoting sports among universities, developing question banks in various subjects at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, maintaining a data bank of dissertations accepted by universities for awarding doctoral degrees. Decision making on equivalence of foreign qualifications is vested in the AIU’s Equivalence and Standing Committee consisting of 15 -19 Vice-Chancellors.

The book, Equivalence of Foreign Degrees (as amended up to September 1995) published by it shows recognition accorded by it and by Indian universities to various foreign examinations. The AIU has also been co-opted on the Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications set up by the Government of India for the purpose of recognition of academic and professional qualifications (except health and medicine related subjects) for employment in posts and services under the Central Government. The AIU has now undertaken the task of granting equivalence to degrees awarded in India by foreign educational institutions which have tie-up arrangements with Indian institutions (See Chapter 14,-“Invasion”of Foreign Education). The Research Division of AIU undertakes in-depth studies on various aspects of higher education. The results of the research are disseminated through the publication of books and monographs.

The AUI acts as a bureau of information in higher education and brings out a directory every alternative year titled the University Handbook containing detailed information about universities and lists of colleges affiliated to them. It is both comprehensive and authoritative. Besides, it also publishes handbooks containing information about scholarships, distance education courses and courses in medicine, engineering management, computer (MCA), library and information Science. They are frequently updated. Its weekly journal, University News, publishes articles on education’ and disseminates educational information including the feature, “Theses of the month” a list of doctoral theses accepted by Indian universities. It has also undertaken the publication of retrospective “Bibliographies of Doctoral Dissertations” covering dissertations accepted by Indian universities since 1857.

Regulatory Authorities in Professional Education

As stated earlier, while education, including university education is in the State list of the Constitution, the Centre is entrusted with the responsibility of coordinated development and maintenance of prescribed standards of education. Accordingly, the University Grants Commission was set up in 1956 followed by the establishment of a number of regulatory bodies called Councils in the field of professional education through parliamentary enactments. While in the pre-independence days there was only one such Council - the Medical Council of India established in 1933 - three are now more than dozen.

Besides the Councils, there are three other statutorily constituted regulatory bodies, viz., the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (ICWAI). They are responsible for regulating the standards of education and profession in their respective areas. Unlike the Councils, they themselves conduct the examinations and admit the qualified students as Associate Members as professionals. Chapters 21, 24 and 26 discuss the roles and functions of these three Institutes.

The most widely known regulatory Council is the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), because of the large number of professional and technical disciplines it controls. The avowed objectives of creating such councils are to regulate the establishments of professional institutions and the courses offered by them and to uphold high degree of academic excellence and professional competence. The statutory Councils prescribe, what is called “Minimum Standards” in respect of infrastructural facilities required for establishing professional institutions as well as norms and criteria to be observed by them to ensure high standard of education. Most of the Councils are authorised to visit examination centres to ascertain whether examinations are being conducted properly. The Annexure gives a brief account of 14 such Councils.

The process of recognition of institutions involves the participation of the State government and its concerned departments, the affiliating university and the concerned regulatory body. Besides setting norms and standards for professional courses, some of the Councils have another important function. They are required to register students who have qualified from the recognised institutions so as to enable them to undertake legal practice in their respective professions. The medical profession is the most well-known example of this nature.

A medical student must qualify from a medical college recognised by the Medical Council of India and after fulfilling the specified conditions (e.g., internship in hospitals) becomes eligible for registration with the State level Medical Council to undertake practice legally. In professions, where no such registration is necessary, students qualifying from recognised institutions only are eligible for employment or can pursue further education. For example, the National Council for Teacher Education, which regulates education, has issued a sort of ‘statutory warning’ that “qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to courses offered by unrecognised institutions will not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under Central/State government institutions, universities, colleges, schools or other educational bodies aided by Central/State Governments”.

It is therefore, essential that students must first ascertain whether the institutions in which they are seeking admission are recognised by the concerned regulatory authority. However, the problem is that complete lists of such institutions in many disciplines are not readily available. The Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India which handle a small number of institutions often publish in newspapers lists of recognised medical and dental colleges.

The AICTE which has a comparatively larger number of institutions under its umbrella, publish several directories, each dealing with a group of courses. However, they become out of date no sooner than they are published. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) have established their own websites. Lists of recognised institutions and courses are available from these sites. It is not understood why, in the age of information technology, the regulatory bodies cannot maintain readily available lists of recognised institutions along with the approved courses.

As stated in the Prologue, the potential of Internet for providing information about recognised institutions and courses is yet to be exploited by the regulatory authorities. The introduction of State level common entrance tests in different disciplines has partially mitigated the problem. The agencies conducting the tests are in possession of the latest lists issued by many agencies contain such lists. The regulatory agencies should insist that the recognised institutions must indicate in the prospectuses and admission advertisements the fact that their courses are approved by the relevant agency.

Regulatory Authorities and University Autonomy

Major fallout of the proliferation of statutorily established Councils is the growing concern of universities for the gradual encroachment on their autonomy. Of late, it has almost become a common refrain at the annual conferences of Vice-Chancellors that the autonomy of the universities is getting eroded on account of “high and mighty” attitudes of bodies like AICTE and NCTE. This is evident from the resolutions adopted by the Conference of the South Zone Vice-Chancellors held on September 18, 1997: “The meeting views with concern the establishment of a large number of statutory Councils. This has led to overleaping of authorities and a consequent reduction of the autonomy of universities.

The meeting urges the government to review the various Acts adopted, take a holistic approach and restore to higher education its lost homogeneity”. The North Zone Vice0-Chancellors Conference at Hisar held during 12 and 13 September 1997 asserted in the same vein: that the “right of affiliation rest with the universities and they should exercise this right when considered necessary”. This has led to an acrimonious debate about the authority of the Councils vis-à-vis the universities regarding recognition of institutions and courses and fixing of number of seats. There are instances where AICTE had given approval to an institution, but the concerned university refused to fall in line.

There are also cases where the university had approved an institution but the AICTE did not. Often settling disputes between the two needed the intervention of the judiciary. The Bharatidasan University and the AICTE once were locked in a confrontation over the establishment of and Engineering & Technology, under its aegis. The university issued admission advertisements without obtaining the approval of AICTE and admitted about 200 students.

Beside Universities, the State governments are often at loggerheads with the councils over recognition of institution and their intake capacities. A recent example is the dispute over the recognition of a medical college in Tanda in Kangra district in Himachal Pradesh. The then Congress Government in the State admitted 50 students to the college despite objections raised by the Medical Council of India (MCI). The government obtained stay from the Himachal Pradesh High Court to which the MCI took strong objection and went to the Supreme Court with an appeal.

The successor non-Congress government pumped in funds to rectify the shortcomings and the college has now received approval. In Gujarat, two Medical Colleges, one at Rajkot and the other at Bhavnagar, launched in 1995 are still under perpetual threat of derecognition. They are surviving on a year-to-year basis recognition of the MCI, because of the failure of the government to conform to the MCI prescribed norms. Likewise, several States were up in arms against the NCTE because of insistence that teacher education colleges must conform to the norms set by it or face derecognition. In such disputes, unfortunately, the victims are the unsuspecting students and their parents. In a major judgment (April 16, 2000), the Supreme Court had ruled that a State Government cannot prevent a university from granting affiliation to a private engineering college once the AICTE had recognised it.

The demand for professional education has risen steeply in the last few years. This cannot be met fully by state-funded or state-aided institutions alone. This is why a new category of private, self-financing institutions have registered a phenomenal growth. They offer courses in engineering and technology, computer, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, management, teacher education and law, for which there is great demand. Many of these institutions are deficient in matters like infrastructure, competent faculty and even a congenial campus environment.

The statutory Councils have certainly a crucial role in disciplining such errant institutions. It is therefore, an imperative necessity that all the agencies which are involved in the promotion of professional education - the universities, the State Governments and the regulatory Councils -work in unison without getting into the quagmire of controversies. The issue is not which agency has more power. It is the future of the youth of the country which is at stake.

The recent unearthing of fake B.Ed. degree racket in the Lalit Narayan Mithila University (Darbhanga, Bihar) at the initiative of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and the subsequent crackdown on the university officials including the Vice-Chancellors have shocked the academic community. Two more fake degree rackets have come to light recently: 1. BN Mandal University (Madhapura, Bihar), involving the Vide-Chancellor and 2. Nagpur University, involving the Registrar. These may be isolated events, but they show that the claim for university autonomy without accountability may not be accepted at its face value.

Update

The issue of recognition of professional educational institutions and course by the concerned regulatory authorities become the subject of dispute under the Consumer Protection Act (1986) had led to far reaching verdict awarded by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The apex consumer court has resolved the basic question whether educational institutions come under the ambit of consumer courts and held that they too are liable for deficient services rendered. The verdict was in response to complaint field by 12 students, who joined the Buddhist Mission Dental College in Bihar. The College in its admission advertisements for the BDS Course, gave an impression that it is affiliated to Magadh University and recognized by the Dental Council of India. After joining the College the students to their dismay found that it was neither affiliated to Magadh University nor it is recognized by the Council. As a result, they not only lost two academic years but also the money spent on fees, hostel charges, etc. Holding the service rendered by the College to be deficient, the Commission directed it to refund all admission expenses with interest and pay compensation for the loss of two years and, also the cost of the petition.

Apart from the redressal of the grievances of students, the importance of the award lies in the fact, that it brought educational institution under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission observed, "Imparting of education by an educational institution for consideration falls within the ambit of 'service' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Fees are paid for service to be rendered by way of imparting education by the educational institutions. If there is no rendering of service, the question of payment of fee world not arise. The complaints (the student in this case) had hired the service of the respondents (the College) for consideration and so they are consumers as defined in Consumer Protection Act".