r e po r t o f t h e REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION “ JANUARY 1977 NIEPA - DC 10 4 9 6 'WBsraa MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & SOCIAL WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF e f t I ( O -nTPW, CONTENTS Page Foreword .... ....................................................................... (Hi) CHAPTER I • Introductory—A Survey.......................................................................................... i CHAPTER II • Coordination and Standards ......... 23 CHAPTER III . Colleges and Standards . .................................................................................. 45 CHAPTER IV • G r a n ts ........................................................................................................................ 55 CHAPTER V • Research, Planning and Evaluation ........ 67 CHAPTER VI . Organisation and Structure . ....................................................................... 83 CHAPTER Vft • Constitutional and Legal Aspects ........ 93 Concluding Rem arks ............................................................................................ 97 Appendices Appendix I ............... 101 A. Letter to academicians and educational administrators B. Questionnaire—I C. Annexure to Questionnaire—I D. 'Questionnaire—II E. Supplementary list of questions for UGC only F. Items 0:1 which information was sought from UGC Appendix II . List of persons interviewed . • ■ • . • 118 Appendix III . Composition of University Grants Commission, |NewDelhi(asin January, 1977) 134 Appendix IV . Composition of University Grants Committee, United Kingdom (as in June, 1975) ................................................................................................................ 135 A ??;niix V . Statistical Tables (I to XIX) ......... 136 Appendix VI . Staff of the UGC Review Committee ........ 164 Appendix VII . Selected B ib lio g rap h y .......................................................................................... 165 FOREWORD In pursuance of the recommendation made by the field of higher education, research and planning. We Pubiiic Accounts Committee of Parliament in its 114th took advantage of the presence of some foreign edu­ Repoirt, Government of India was pleased to appoint cationists visiting India and are grateful for their this committee on August 31, 1974, to review the sparing time for discussions with us which proved functiioning of the University Grants Commission. very valuable. Copies of questionnaires and the list The terms of reference were: of persons we interviewed are given in appendices I ‘“To review the functioning of the University and II. {Grants Commission, with particular reference to 4. The scope of work involved in the briefly- (coordination and determination of standards of worded terms of reference was wide. We had to Ihigher education, and make recommendations take a view of the policies and programmes of the (Conducive to more effective discharge of its UGC since its inception. Having been entrusted with ^responsibilities.” the duty of specially studying the Commission’s role 2. Initially, government appointed Dr. V. S. Jha in the matter of coordination and determination of as Clhairman and Dr. B. Datta as well as Prof. R. C. standards of higher education, we had to seek the Mehnotra as members of the four-man committee the views of all concerned regarding the manner of reali­ member-secretary of which was appointed in May sation of the twin objectives of coordination and 1975.. Dr. B. Datta had, regrettably, to resign from standards and spell out, to the best of our judgment, the miembership on grounds of health and in his place measures by way of constitutional and legal remedies Prof. G. C. Pande was appointed member in July as well as organisational inputs which we consider 1975.. Before Shri S. N. Pandita joined as joint necessary for the effective performance of these secretary in the ministry of education and member- functions by the Commission. We are convinced that &ecretzary of this committee, Shri R. S. Chitkara, for­ efforts at achieving coordination and standards of merly director in the ministry, assisted in the com- higher education, vital to the interests of the country, mittee;’s preliminary work. We are thankful to Dr. can bear results only if an autonomous academic body B. Dmtta and Shri R. S. Chitkara for their valuable like the UGC is supported by an adequate organisation assistamce. for research, planning and evaluation of higher edu­ cation, has close working relations with other bodies 3. W e addressed letters to 373 persons including dealing with research and specialised sectors of educattional administrators and academicians and education, is provided adequate funds and necessary others; associated with higher education, seeking their authority to oversee the performance of, and provide suggestions. We prepared and issued three different effective leadership to, institutions of higher learning. questionnaires. Questionnaire I (7,076 copies) were sent ten vice-chancellors, deans and other faculty mem­ 5. It is relevant—perhaps more so today—to bers oif universities, principals and teachers of colleges, repeat the following observation made in the introduc­ state (education authorities, members of Parliament, tory chapter of the report of the illustrious University membfers of legislative assemblies and others who have Education Commission (the Radhakrishnan Commis­ been pprominent in the field of higher education. sion 1949): “With the increasing complexity of Annexuire to Questionnaire I (3,110 copies) were sent society and its shifting pattern, universities have to to universities and colleges. Questionnaire II (607 change their objectives and methods, if they are to copies)), were sent to past and present chairman and function effectively in our national life. A policy of membeers of the UGC and its various committees. drift in the vague hope that, if the universities are Besides, we interviewed about 1,000 persons including granted full autonomy and are permitted to pursue chancellors, chief ministers, education ministers, their own ends with intelligence and imagination, jenior officers of state education departments, vice- higher education will take care of itself, will be :hanceH!ors and faculty members of universities, dangerous. Automatic and spontaneous adjustment ■ollege' principals and other prominent persons in the will not take us to the future we want. We must (iit) (iv) develo'p a comprehensive positive policy within the 8. We owe a debt of gratitude to the secretary limits of which there should be ample scope for and other officers of the Commission. They showed pioneering and experimentation.” Such a policy patience with us and had to put in considerable extra needs to be continually reviewed and developed by work to supply material in reply to our manifold the University Grants Commission, which is the queries. Shri R. K. Chhabra, the secretary, gave «s instrument dfevised by our law-makers for achieving many hours of his busy time and information of great coordination and standards in higher education. In value. We admire his wide and deep knowledge of our view, this body should more appropriately be the working of the Commission and the problems of called the University Education Commission becav*se higher education. Dr. J. N. Kaul, joint secretary, grants are only a means for achieving the ends of was helpful, like his other colleagues, in the long coordination and standards. The Commission has interview we had with him; and his learned study done valuable work in the last two decades. The “The Higher Learning in India’*' proved to be a very advance made in recent years in our country in fields useful reference material. like nuclear physics, space science, technology or import substitution, it would have to be admitted, is 9. We would also like to acknowledge the benefit in no small measurfe due to good products of our we had of the various published works by Indian and university system. However, much requires to be foreign authors on higher education. We are parti­ done to raise the level of our average graduate and cularly grateful to Dr. F. H. Harrington, past presi­ post-graduates through improvement of university dent. University of Wisconsin, and programme adviser, standards. We are recommending measures which, Ford Foundation. New Delhi, Mr. R. Ellsworth we hope, will enable the UGC to perform its functions Miller of USTS, Mr. S. E. Hodgson and Mr. Denniis more effectively. Gunton of the British Council Division the British High Commission, New Delhi, and M r. Heni <de 6. The views expressed and recommendations made Coienac, Counsellor of French Embassy, New Dellhi, by us are our own and we own full responsibility for who supplied us valuable literature and kept us them. However, we must ackunowledge that in formu­ informed about the visits of distinguished academ i­ lating them we have been greatly helped by the mate­ cians from their countries. Mr. Dennis Gunton of rial supplied on our request by the UGC, the opinions the British Council Library was particularly obligiing expressed during interviews by a large body of in retting for us from London some useful literature academicians, educational administrators and emi­ and loaning to us some of the latest published studiies nent persons who have been connected with higher which he got flown by ait*. education, research and planning and the suggestions received in the replies to our letters and answers to 10. We are grateful to the Jawaharlal Nehru