Hindustan
Times: New Delhi: Thursday, 12 February 2015.
University
Grants Commission (UGC) rules prohibit universities from affiliating colleges
outside their states, but Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU)
Delhi, has granted affiliation to the College of Architecture of Delhi
Technical Campus (DTC), a private institute, in Greater Noida. Interestingly,
neither the human resource development ministry nor the UGC or Council of Architecture (CoA) are
able to clearly pinpoint the violation or give answers on the validity of
degrees awarded by the college.
According to
UGC’s notification dated June 27, 2013 with regard to territorial jurisdiction,
a state university cannot grant affiliation to any college beyond the state’s
geographical boundaries even if the university’s own act allows it to do so.
When Ashok
Goel, a veteran architect based in Delhi realised the GGSIPU (which comes under
the Delhi government) was violating UGC’s notification by granting affiliations
to DTC, he decided to file an RTI asking the UGC to confirm the legal status of
degrees awarded to DTC students.
To UGC’s
response that the degree would not be recognised, Goel again enquired if the
UGC would stop the university from granting affiliations. UGC’s reply to that
was: “UGC will take action on receipt of
specific complaint.”
Goel then
filed complaints with five authorities, namely, the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD), AII India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Council
of Architecture (CoA), UGC and Directorate of Education (DOE) Delhi. UGC’s
response was attached with each complaint.
“Normally,
when we file a complaint with one
authority, it forwards it to the other one and the compliant keeps moving from
one department to another. So I decided to agitate the issue in all the
departments at one go to expedite action. The reason why I complained to AICTE
was that DTC also offers degrees in technical courses,” says Goel.
MHRD
transferred Goel’s complaint to UGC and UGC forwarded it to the registrar,
GGSIPU, asking, “You are requested to send the comment on the complaint at the
earliest.”
The UGC also
wrote to the D0E, saying “The requested information doesn’t fall within my
jurisdiction. The application in original is, therefore, being transferred to
you under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005, as the matter closely
relates to you. In case it doesn’t fall under your jurisdiction, it may please
be further transferred to the public authority to which the subject matter is
more closely connected, directly, under intimation to the applicant.” DoE’s response to this was: “The requested information falls under the
jurisdiction of your (UGC) deparment. Hence the application is being
transferred to you under section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005.”
AICTE,
meanwhile, washed its hands of the case saying that universities were governed
by the UGC and AICTE had no role to play.
The CoA,
writing to Goel, said, “First of all, it is clarified that no separate
action-taken report is required to be prepared or maintained under the
Architects Act, 1972, on the communications/representation received at this
office. However, as regards your letter dated 01.12.2014 to the chairman, UGC,
and vice chancellor, Guru Gobind Singh IP University, for their perusal and
necessary action at their end since Council is not the competent authority to
deal with matters related to affiliation with universities.”
Justifying
the affiliation to DTC, Sunita Shiva, deputy registrar (affiliation), GGSIPU,
said the university “is established by the government of NCT of Delhi vide ‘The
Indraprastha Vishwavidyalaya Act 1998,’….Under section 5(21)(A), the university
is empowered to establish and maintain colleges, institutions and such other
centres of education, research, training and extension as deemed appropriate by
the University and as per section 4(1) under this Act, the limits of the area
within which the University shall exercise its power, shall be those of The
National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985.”
On Goel’s
question if action could be taken against GGSIPU for its reply, UGC responded
with: “action has already been taken on your complaint (copy enclosed).” The copy was a letter from UGC to the GGSIPU
registrar, asking for a “comment on the complaint at the earliest.”
Why this
special treatment for private colleges?
Some CoA
members and many college principals have alleged that the Council is promoting
private colleges and is biased against government colleges. It’s quite evident
from these two cases. While in the case of Delhi Technical Campus, despite
UGC’s stand that its degree is not recognised, CoA doesn’t talk about
withdrawing approval.However in case of the Chandigarh College of Architecture,
it has gone beyond its jurisdiction and put the college in no-admission
category.
Pradeep
Bhagat, principal, CCA had raised this issue in a letter to MHRD on March 20,
2014 as he had written, “The CoA is blatantly allowing increase in students
intake at first year level in fledgling private colleges of architecture which
have been started less than 10 years ago… Rather than concerned about the
quality of education and the facilities in these private institutions, the
council in its own wisdom is choosing to target a 53-year-old government
institution imparting quality architectural education for last five decades.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
