| |
|
Academic wrangling
|
DAV, Guru Nanak Dev University at loggerheads again
after 35 years
|
|
By Varinder Walia
|
| |
|
The language divide in Punjab at the turn of the twentieth century that reached its climax following the demand of a separate Punjabi Suba presents a complex phenomenon. The formation of separate Punjabi-speaking state followed by foundation of Guru Nanak Dev University in 1966 and 1969, respectively, made the language divide murkier in the newly-carved-out state in those days.
|
|
|
|
Initially, it was Guru Nanak University (GNU). After amending the Guru Nanak University Act 1969, it was rechristened as Guru Nanak Dev University in 1975. Within six years of its inception, educationists saw the DAV Trust Management and the newly-formed varsity at loggerheads.
|
|
|
| |
The old issue — DAV v/s State and Guru Nanak Dev University — has again come to the fore, with the state government issuing directives to the former (DAV) to follow the norms of Punjab government while making appointments.
The decision of the Coordination Committee of Vice-Chancellors to enforce UGC/state government’s norms while selecting principals, lecturers in all DAV Colleges (thus ending their ‘minority status’ enjoyed by the management in Punjab for the last about 35 years), earned the wrath of DAV Management again. This is not acceptable to the DAV Management that claims that the state and Guru Nanak Dev Varsity were “misconstruing” the decision of the apex court.
|
|
The meeting, presided by Ms Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, Deputy Chief Minister, and attended by Vice-Chancellors of Guru Nanak Dev University and Punjabi University, Patiala, and representatives of Punjab Technical University and Panjab University had taken the decision after seeking legal opinion from the Legal Remembrance.
Since the inception of Guru Nanak Dev University in 1969, the DAV educational institutions had been insisting on making independent appointments without involving representations of Vice-Chancellors or DPI.
The decision of the state government has also come as a big jolt for Sikh, Jain and Christian educational institutions in the state, which had been demanding ‘minority status’ on the pattern of DAV colleges. So much so that the Sikh Educational Society, Chandigarh, in a letter to Guru Nanak Dev Varsity, had threatened to make independent appointments without involving the representatives of the DPI and the VCs on the pattern of DAV.
|
|
Mr D.R. Gupta, Director, DAV Colleges, New Delhi, said it was shocking that the state government was ‘misguided’ on the minority status, being enjoyed by the DAV educational institutes in Punjab since 1970s. He claimed that the judgement of the apex court was in favour of the DAV managements, which had clearly mentioned that the state government or the universities could not interfere in the appointments of teaching and non-teaching by the DAV management. However, ignoring the claims of DAV, Guru Nanak Dev University syndicate endorsed the decision of the state government to enforce UGC/state government’s norms while selecting principals, lecturers in all DAV colleges.
Reacting sharply to the decision, Mr D.R. Gupta said the decision of the state and its endorsement by the varsity syndicate was neither on merit nor in the spirit of the Supreme Court judgement pronounced in October 2002. He said after the formation of Guru Nanak Dev Varsity, the DAV Management apprehended that its (DAV’s) distinct identity could be threatened by the new university and hence they sought affiliation with Panjab University instead. He said the DAV Management would contest the decision of the state and the syndicate at an appropriate platform.
Earlier, DPI (Colleges) had sent communication to all principals of DAV colleges to meticulously implement the directions of the state government regarding appointments and transfers of the employees to claim grant-in-aid. The DPI had also directed the principals to supply entire data with regard to appointments and transfers after 1981. Henceforth, it would be mandatory for DAV institutes to have nominees of VCs and DPI as per the UGC norms in their selection committees as decided by the syndicate.
|
|
For many years till the formation of Beant Singh government, the university authorities failed to contest the case properly. So much so, the file was found missing from the university records.
The official note of the Dean College Development Council, dated October 7, 1996, shows the “callous” attitude of the university officials, who had failed to contest the case for more than 15 years seriously. It reads, “The undersigned vividly remembers that a copy of the original petition filed by the DAV College Trust and Management, New Delhi, was received by the university; and evidently a suitable reply may also have been filed in the Supreme Court. The case was not decided by the apex court during all this period. The file relating to this case is not traceable in the university offices. On perusal of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioners have challenged certain notifications issued by the education department through the DPI and that it is the Department of Punjab that is contesting the case. It will, therefore, be appropriate to have a close liaison with the DPI (Colleges), Punjab, which is the main respondent in this case. The university need not file a separate reply to the petition at such a belated stage. Rather the reply filed by the state Education Department in this writ petition may be taken as the reply of the university”.
|
|
The issue of Punjabi language remained the bone of contention during the long legal battle between DAV and State/Guru Nanak Dev University. The university claimed that Punjabi language should be enforced as the sole medium of instruction and for examinations on the ground that it was the national policy of the Government of India to develop Indian languages and literature. The colleges in question used Hindi as the medium of instruction and Devnagri as the script. The management claimed that, apart from holding that the State Legislature was legislatively incompetent to make Punjabi the sole medium of instruction. It reaffirmed the fact that the college (although run by the Hindu community that represented the national majority) was, in Punjab, a religious minority with a distinct script, and therefore, the state could not compel the petitioner-college to teach in Punjabi or take examinations in that language with Gurmukhi script.
Mr P.C Valla, a Counsel of the university, wrote on October 11, 1996 , “As to my recollection, this case was not contested by the university on the advice of Mr K. S. Gill, then Vice-Chancellor in writing on the basis of reference of the decision taken in the meeting of Vice-Chancellors of the universities in the state. The relevant file, which is now reported to be missing, was thoroughly examined by me in compliance with an order of the Vice- Chancellor G.S. Randhawa passed on a note put up by Dr Devinder Singh, the then Secretary of the Vice-Chancellor, complaining that the case should have been contested by the university, Thereupon, the case was assigned to Mr Ajit Singh, Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi in pursuance of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor, for representing the university in the said case. Moreover, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the state government pertaining to constitution of selection committee for appointment of teachers and their main thrust is that Arya Samaj Institution, including DAV institution, are administered by the religious and linguistic minority within the meaning of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution and they were entitled to administer these institutions according to their choice without any sort of interference by the state government. At this belated stage, it would not be legally admissible to file written statement when the date fixed for the purpose has since long expired. Ajit Singh, University Advocate, may be requested to appear on behalf of the university about the progress of the case accordingly. The missing of such an important file from the office of the university is a matter to be seriously taken by the authorities for probe and fixing responsibility so that such a lapse does not occur again and no one is permitted to ignore the interest of the university”.
|
|
According to Mr R.S Suri, advocate for Punjab (1981), DAV institutions were established to impart religious education. Its main aim and object in Punjab and elsewhere are to encourage the study of Hindi, classical Sanskrit and Vedas and to provide instructions in Hindi. He said that after January 3, 1977, when education was shifted from the state list to the concurrent list, it ceased to be a religious minority. In view of this, the unit for deciding whether a particular group is religious minority or not is the whole country and not a state.
When the society was formed in 1886, it was intended to establish educational institutions in Punjab and other states, and they did not have in mind any minority based on religion and language at all. The Hindus were in the majority till November 1, 1966, when Punjab was reorganised.
One of the objects of the Samaj is to encourage, improve and enforce the study of Hindi, Sanskrit and Vedas. Its other object is to encourage theory and practice of Ayurveda. The members of Arya Samaj never suffered any handicap in Punjab either before November 1, 1966, when Hindus were in the majority nor after the period when Hindus became a minority.
|
|
The state claimed that admittedly Arya Samaj was a religious denomination. Only a minority based on religion or language was entitled to the right conferred by Article 30 (1) but not a religious denomination. The question of linguistic minority was not decided. The state claimed that a society that had established a chain of institutions with its registered office in Delhi and several other states, imparting general education, could not claim the status of minority institutions in the state of Punjab alone where the population of Hindus happened to be less than 50 per cent after November 1, 1966, so that in all other states identical institutions would be subject to state regulation, but only in the state of Punjab they would be free from state regulation in the matter of administration. The state further claimed that the Article 30(1) conferred right on the minority as a whole, and not on a denomination of a minority.
The state further contested that Arya Samaj had no language of its own and could not be treated as a linguistic minority. Its members could belong to different linguistic groups.
|
|
|
Source: www.tribuneindia.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|