'A VC without duties makes no sense’

When Mumbai University vice-chancellor Rajan Welukar did not turn up for the Shiv Jayanti function at Kalina campus on Thursday morning, a few officials thought there was something amiss. In the afternoon, they got a notification from chancellor C Vidyasagar Rao saying pro-vice-chancellor Naresh Chandra was appointed as acting VC with immediate effect.
While university officials were left shocked, many associated with the varsity believed the decision was long-pending.
An official said higher authorities may have wanted him to stay away from the academic and management council’s joint meeting scheduled for the end of the month. It will be held to nominate an academician in the search committee to appoint a new vice-chancellor. “The joint meeting is to be held to nominate an academician on the committee to appoint the new VC. Usually the practice is to authorize the VC to announce the name after the council decision.”
Welukar was asked to abstain from attending office and discharging his duties after the high court questioned his eligibility. TOI was the first to report about doubts over his qualifications.
More theories floated after the governor’s decision was communicated to the university. A professor said the decision must be political due to the change in government. “When the high court questioned his appointment process, and concluded that ‘there was non-application of mind’ by the search committee, he should have gracefully resigned.”
An office bearer from the Bombay University and College Teachers’ Union said they are disappointed with the governor’s decision. “There is a clause in the Universities Act that under Section 12, sub-section 7E, the chancellor, in an emergency, may appoint any suitable person as VC for six months. This was an emergency. He should have been asked to step down and a new person should have been appointed. Asking him to abstain from his duties even as he continues as VC does not make sense. Appointing the pro-vice-chancellor as the acting VC is also not a solution,” said a BUCTU representative.
A D Sawant, former pro-vice-chancellor and one of the petitioners in the court case against Welukar, said, “For four and a half years, neither the search committee nor the lawyers defending his case submitted an affidavit justifying his qualifications. He should have resigned in 2011, but he must have used the political machinery to retain his post.” He alleged that Welukar used university’s funds to fight his case. RTI activist Anil Galgali said money spent from the university fund should be recovered from him.
“It is the most ideal decision that the governor has taken to salvage the university’s reputation. His appointment was political and it was affecting the university’s administration,” said professor Neeraj Hatekar who was suspended for questioning the university’s policies.
A section of university officials, though, say the decision is a little harsh on Welukar. “He would not have anticipated this or else he would have resigned. He still has four to five years before he retires,” said a professor.
University registrar M A Khan said the court has directed the search committee to reconsider the eligibility norms of Welukar. “The impression of the search committee regarding the eligibility should be decided within four weeks. The chancellor in his wisdom may have taken the step for transparent and fair assessment of eligibility,” said Khan.