DU VC appointment: Some nagging questions

In the law book nowhere there is even an oblique reference to any ‘election’ of a panel of three persons. It only mentions a ‘nomination’ of a panel of three persons by the senate

I am propelled to write this article as my moral responsibility of being a former student and later a teacher of my Alma mater. Dhaka University teachers of different groups are quite smart in referring to 1973 Order. It is more so when an appointment is being made by the government. The recent events are getting colourful coverage by their landing in the corridor of legal forums. The appointment of an acting VC has led some teachers to relinquish their administrative responsibilities on the ground that this is a violation of DUO 1973 (?).  

What have we achieved in the course of these developments? The image and the quality of Dhaka University in several areas are in the downswing. I earnestly believe that we have a collective responsibility to escort this university on the right path. There are some popular misconceptions about DUO 1973. The service conditions of teachers and officers as stated in the first statutes of the university are quite stringent. Unfortunately, these are quite frequently violated by all the administrations without any exception. Neither the VC nor the syndicate has any power to give permission for part-time work. This would be a violation of a clear provision of the first statutes of DU. Being ignorant of law many are inclined to believe that DU syndicate is sovereign and as its chief executive the VC can take any decision. No one can, however, adopt any resolution or pass any rule or regulation in conflict with the superior law passed by the parliament. Can the VC or the syndicate undertake any decision in violation of DUO 1973 and its first statutes?

Most recently some of the syndicate members are found to give malafide interpretations of law. I confronted such a member (a former additional judge) who argued that question of natural justice as mentioned in the judicial process is irrelevant in the administrative process. It was in an enquiry committee meeting. I have been observing with great consternation that the poor fellow was giving his highly politically motivated legal opinion and the chair accepted it as the opinion was from a former additional judge. Evidently I found him ignorant of the provisions of law. His views were in sharp conflict with some celebrated judgments of the superior courts of Indian subcontinent. The judgments include that of famous juries such as Mr. Justice AR Cornellius, Mr. Justice SM Murshed and Mr. Justice Shahabuddin Ahmad. The chair was a Professor, another member was a former student leader, both of them were apparently ignorant of law and I myself was the nominee of an accused officer of the university. I wanted to cross examine PWs as per provisions of law. The two above mentioned members opposed me and expressed their anger. The learned former additional judge tried to explain that judicial process would not be applicable here. The student leader expressed his uneasiness and said that I have made the meeting’s environment rather polluted. The chair kept rather silent.

The university authority is too fast in drawing proceedings against teachers belonging to opposition parties sometimes even on flimsy grounds. This is true about cases under sexual harassments. Whereas there is a superior law in the country “ Nari O Shishu Nirjaton Druta Daman Ain”, the university authority invokes its disciplinary procedures rather to harass teachers belonging to opposition panels. These are only a few examples and there are many more cases of abuses of the DUO 1973.     

The appointment of VC according to 1973 Order is made by the Chancellor President of the country. According to the Constitution the President must act by the advice of the Prime Minister. It is abundantly clear that the executive power of appointing DU VC is vested with the PM. In DUO 1973 there are two sub-clauses dealing with appointment of VC. Sub-clause one says that the Chancellor will appoint DU VC from a panel of three persons nominated by the senate and according to such terms and conditions as he deems fit. Sub-clause two says that in case of any vacancy or sickness or any other factor that inhibits the VC to discharge his duties or responsibilities, the Chancellor will make such necessary arrangements as he deems fit.

In the law book nowhere there is even an oblique reference to any ‘election’ of a panel of three persons. It only mentions a ‘nomination’ of a panel of three persons by the senate. The idea of nomination was borrowed from the Dhaka University Act 1920 under which a panel of three persons used to be nominated by the Executive Council of the university which was later renamed as University Syndicate under DUO 1973. The Executive Council used to nominate a panel under a closed door meeting. The details of the proceedings were not for any public consumption. In the post 1972 era this whole idea of nomination of a panel has turned into a political recipe. Irony of the fate is that university teachers, registered graduates and the university community at large are involved in backward tribal fights among themselves without any productive or fruitful results.

Evidently the process of nomination has turned into an open political battle between the two main stream political groups. The ruling party in the university is divided like tribal fractions. In this quasi-tribal-political environment academic issues receive only marginal considerations. The recent events of Dhaka University are sordid, brutal and painful. The issues that need to be addressed are not merely pseudo legalistic ones but they are fundamental and cultural.  

The Dhaka University Act 1920 set the grounds for establishing this historic institution of learning at Dhaka. The basic principles of democracy, autonomy, self-respect and academia were cardinal in the governance of Dhaka University. Among its achievements one of the most significant was its contribution to development of an educated middle class that played a major role both in the language movement and in the war of liberation. The military government of Pakistan being afraid of Dhaka University scrapped the democratic law and instead imposed Dhaka University Ordinance 1960. This martial law empowered the Governor of East Pakistan to dismiss a university teacher virtually without any valid reason. The second statutes of the university under the martial law better known as black laws ‘kala kanun’ imposed more stringent service conditions. These were not only humiliating but also axed the fundamental rights and academic as well as political freedom of the teachers. The self-respecting teachers vehemently opposed it and the nationalist and progressive political leadership also lent support to this movement.

Following independence DUO 1973 was promulgated that helped to reestablish and regain the fundamental rights and freedom scrapped by the martial law. It is reported that while approving DUO 1973 the leadership also expressed its grave concern in the following words: “I know my teachers will do politics with it.”

This concern expressed about fifty years ago regarding DUO 1973 and DU was a genuine one. History has proved what the leadership could see by its deep insight. The broad structure of DUO 1973 is almost the same as that of DUA 1920. It is a one million dollar question: How come the same principles under DUA 1920 that could establish such a glorious institution eventually failed to retain and regain its prestige under DUO 1973? There is more than one issue that needs to be studied carefully. I am, however, inclined to deal only with the question of appointment of DU VC. DU is a statutory public authority. The VC is appointed by the Chancellor and he is   accountable to him only. The VC is accountable neither to syndicate nor to senate. The VC is an employee of the ministry of education and not of the DU. Under the law the senate can only nominate a panel. In the last fifty years this highly politically motivated senate has made this process of ‘nomination’ into a full scale ‘election’. They have also been able to create an impression in the society that they appoint DU VC.

At the end of the day it is the exclusive prerogative of the PM to make this appointment as he deems fit. As a matter of fact two Pro-VCs and a Treasurer are appointed by the Chancellor without going through the process of senate nomination. After seeing fifty years of its actual functioning, the DUO 1973 needs to be reformed. My learned colleagues at my Alma mater should concede their moral defeat. It is only they who have grossly abused the provisions of law as contained in DUO 1973.  The honourable senators have completely failed to understand provisions of law. They have been only trying to promote their political agenda under the guise of democracy. The provision of nomination of a panel by the senate should be scrapped and DU VC should be appointed by the Chancellor at his discretion. This would help to save DU from the dirty details of current tribal politics. If Pro-VCs and Treasurer can be appointed directly, do we lose anything if VC is appointed in the same way? What have we gained in the last fifty years by tribal democracy of the senate?

The writer is a Professor of Economics, American International University-Bangladesh

 

DU VC appointment: Some nagging questions

In the law book nowhere there is even an oblique reference to any election of a panel of three persons. It only mentions a nomination of a panel of three persons by the senate

I am propelled to write this article as my moral responsibility of being a former student and later a teacher of my Alma mater. Dhaka University teachers of different groups are quite smart in referring to 1973 Order. It is more so when an appointment is being made by the government. The recent events are getting colourful coverage by their landing in the corridor of legal forums. The appointment of an acting VC has led some teachers to relinquish their administrative responsibilities on the ground that this is a violation of DUO 1973 (?). What have we achieved in the course of these developments? The image and the quality of Dhaka University in several areas are in the downswing. I earnestly believe that we have a collective responsibility to escort this university on the right path. There are some popular misconceptions about DUO 1973. The service conditions of teachers and officers as stated in the first statutes of the university are quite stringent. Unfortunately, these are quite frequently violated by all the administrations without any exception. Neither the VC nor the syndicate has any power to give permission for part-time work. This would be a violation of a clear provision of the first statutes of DU. Being ignorant of law many are inclined to believe that DU syndicate is sovereign and as its chief executive the VC can take any decision. No one can, however, adopt any resolution or pass any rule or regulation in conflict with the superior law passed by the parliament. Can the VC or the syndicate undertake any decision in violation of DUO 1973 and its first statutes? Most recently some of the syndicate members are found to give malafide interpretations of law. I confronted such a member (a former additional judge) who argued that question of natural justice as mentioned in the judicial process is irrelevant in the administrative process. It was in an enquiry committee meeting. I have been observing with great consternation that the poor fellow was giving his highly politically motivated legal opinion and the chair accepted it as the opinion was from a former additional judge. Evidently I found him ignorant of the provisions of law. His views were in sharp conflict with some celebrated judgments of the superior courts of Indian subcontinent. The judgments include that of famous juries such as Mr. Justice AR Cornellius, Mr. Justice SM Murshed and Mr. Justice Shahabuddin Ahmad. The chair was a Professor, another member was a former student leader, both of them were apparently ignorant of law and I myself was the nominee of an accused officer of the university. I wanted to cross examine PWs as per provisions of law. The two above mentioned members opposed me and expressed their anger. The learned former additional judge tried to explain that judicial process would not be applicable here. The student leader expressed his uneasiness and said that I have made the meetings environment rather polluted. The chair kept rather silent. The university authority is too fast in drawing proceedings against teachers belonging to opposition parties sometimes even on flimsy grounds. This is true about cases under sexual harassments. Whereas there is a superior law in the country Nari O Shishu Nirjaton Druta Daman Ain, the university authority invokes its disciplinary procedures rather to harass teachers belonging to opposition panels. These are only a few examples and there are many more cases of abuses of the DUO 1973. The appointment of VC according to 1973 Order is made by the Chancellor President of the country. According to the Constitution the President must act by the advice of the Prime Minister. It is abundantly clear that the executive power of appointing DU VC is vested with the PM. In DUO 1973 there are two sub-clauses dealing with appointment of VC. Sub-clause one says that the Chancellor will appoint DU VC from a panel of three persons nominated by the senate and according to such terms and conditions as he deems fit. Sub-clause two says that in case of any vacancy or sickness or any other factor that inhibits the VC to discharge his duties or responsibilities, the Chancellor will make such necessary arrangements as he deems fit. In the law book nowhere there is even an oblique reference to any election of a panel of three persons. It only mentions a nomination of a panel of three persons by the senate. The idea of nomination was borrowed from the Dhaka University Act 1920 under which a panel of three persons used to be nominated by the Executive Council of the university which was later renamed as University Syndicate under DUO 1973. The Executive Council used to nominate a panel under a closed door meeting. The details of the proceedings were not for any public consumption. In the post 1972 era this whole idea of nomination of a panel has turned into a political recipe. Irony of the fate is that university teachers, registered graduates and the university community at large are involved in backward tribal fights among themselves without any productive or fruitful results. Evidently the process of nomination has turned into an open political battle between the two main stream political groups. The ruling party in the university is divided like tribal fractions. In this quasi-tribal-political environment academic issues receive only marginal considerations. The recent events of Dhaka University are sordid, brutal and painful. The issues that need to be addressed are not merely pseudo legalistic ones but they are fundamental and cultural. The Dhaka University Act 1920 set the grounds for establishing this historic institution of learning at Dhaka. The basic principles of democracy, autonomy, self-respect and academia were cardinal in the governance of Dhaka University. Among its achievements one of the most significant was its contribution to development of an educated middle class that played a major role both in the language movement and in the war of liberation. The military government of Pakistan being afraid of Dhaka University scrapped the democratic law and instead imposed Dhaka University Ordinance 1960. This martial law empowered the Governor of East Pakistan to dismiss a university teacher virtually without any valid reason. The second statutes of the university under the martial law better known as black laws kala kanun imposed more stringent service conditions. These were not only humiliating but also axed the fundamental rights and academic as well as political freedom of the teachers. The self-respecting teachers vehemently opposed it and the nationalist and progressive political leadership also lent support to this movement. Following independence DUO 1973 was promulgated that helped to reestablish and regain the fundamental rights and freedom scrapped by the martial law. It is reported that while approving DUO 1973 the leadership also expressed its grave concern in the following words: I know my teachers will do politics with it. This concern expressed about fifty years ago regarding DUO 1973 and DU was a genuine one. History has proved what the leadership could see by its deep insight. The broad structure of DUO 1973 is almost the same as that of DUA 1920. It is a one million dollar question: How come the same principles under DUA 1920 that could establish such a glorious institution eventually failed to retain and regain its prestige under DUO 1973? There is more than one issue that needs to be studied carefully. I am, however, inclined to deal only with the question of appointment of DU VC. DU is a statutory public authority. The VC is appointed by the Chancellor and he is accountable to him only. The VC is accountable neither to syndicate nor to senate. The VC is an employee of the ministry of education and not of the DU. Under the law the senate can only nominate a panel. In the last fifty years this highly politically motivated senate has made this process of nomination into a full scale election. They have also been able to create an impression in the society that they appoint DU VC. At the end of the day it is the exclusive prerogative of the PM to make this appointment as he deems fit. As a matter of fact two Pro-VCs and a Treasurer are appointed by the Chancellor without going through the process of senate nomination. After seeing fifty years of its actual functioning, the DUO 1973 needs to be reformed. My learned colleagues at my Alma mater should concede their moral defeat. It is only they who have grossly abused the provisions of law as contained in DUO 1973. The honourable senators have completely failed to understand provisions of law. They have been only trying to promote their political agenda under the guise of democracy. The provision of nomination of a panel by the senate should be scrapped and DU VC should be appointed by the Chancellor at his discretion. This would help to save DU from the dirty details of current tribal politics. If Pro-VCs and Treasurer can be appointed directly, do we lose anything if VC is appointed in the same way? What have we gained in the last fifty years by tribal democracy of the senate? The writer is a Professor of Economics, American International University-Bangladesh