63.Appointments of Directors in NITs

 When  Regional Engineering Colleges  were  converted to  National Institutes of Technology in 2002, several changes in the administrative set up  were also introduced. The  head  of the institution   was re-designated as Director  instead of the Principal earlier and positions of a few Deans were also created. Like  in a university, N.I.T.s  were to have their own Senate and other  academic bodies such as Academic  Council, Board  for  UG Studies, Board  for  PG Studies and Research etc. Deans  were nominated from among the  senior professors  for a period of three years by the  Director. In N.I.T. Calicut, five  positions of Deans  were created, viz. Dean (Administration), Dean (Students Affairs), Dean (Faculty Welfare)  Dean Academic (Under graduate Studies - UG) and Dean Academic ( PG Studies and Research -PGSR). Deans were  eligible  for a token honorarium but  more  than this, the  position was  important because these  positions were  crucial for the functioning of the institute as  they were predominantly  extended  hands of the Director in the day to day governance. When I returned  from  Turkey / North Cyprus, being  a  person with  experience  in two international universities where  credit system was in place, I thought  I could do something in the  formulation of the  academic  rules and regulations as one of the  Academic Deans.  However, Director  thought  of his  own friends  in these  positions irrespective  of the  merit  of the  individual. Believe me, in a National Institute  of Technology, one  of the Academic Deans was  from a non-engineering department, for reasons  known  only  to  the  person who nominated him.

 

Attempt to get  the administration  of the Regional Engineering Colleges from the clutches of the  state government started  as early as  1983 when  Dr SUP   took over  as principal. However  due to the lack of coordination  between  other  RECs things  could  not move up. After  several  years  of deliberation and reports  by a few review  committees  to improve the   working of RECs, it was  the first  NDA  government at the centre   who decided to transform RECs  to NITs. The  incumbent Principals were  allowed  to continue as  Directors of the  respective institutes. Subsequently rules were formulated for  the  regular  appointment of Directors in the  fifteen NITs in the different states. Directors were to be appointed on a contract basis  for a period of five years, likely  to be  extended for another  term on the  consent of the individual and  the  Board  of Governors/MHRD. Advertisement  for appointment of Directors to all NITs  was made together. Another condition stipulated was  that  the appointee  should  have a minimum period  of five years in the  parent institution  before superannuation  as the appointment  was  on deputation or  leave. In our  NITC, the  retirement age was  62 and a few senior professors  like  me were eligible  to apply for the  Director’s post. Along  with  me, another professor  also applied  for the Director’s post. The incumbent Director  did  not have  five years  of service and it was  not known whether he has applied for the post. However, even though  we both were  eligible  for the post, we were  not called for interview. I suspected  someone to have played a  trick on us using his influence at the centre.

 

Using all the  information collected, I filed a petition  in the  Kerala High  court praying that  I may also be given a chance to appear  for the  interview as I was  eligible  to the  post as per  the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Honourable  high court of Kerala  gave a direction to MHRD to  call  me also for the interview. As  the  interviews  had already started, I took a flight from Kochi airport and presented the direction of the court to the  official at the  MHRD.  Looking  at the paper, the official remarked “ You, from Kerala  brings in direction   from the  High court?”. I said  “If you  are  not ready to allow me to be interviewed, give  me in writing so that I can  return to  my  place”. He went inside and reported to his  boss and after  half an hour  came back and gave  me a letter asking me to report for interview next day.

 

The  next day, as  I appeared  before  the  interview  panel, the first  question asked was  whether  I have  five years  of service  in NITC. I said  ‘Yes, as the retirement age is 62 in our college now’. The Chairman  was telling  me , no it was  60. When  I said  that even a few days back two of my colleagues have retired at 62, he  called his staff and they were  discussing  something. From his anger, it was evident  that  they  had  made a mistake or deliberately excluded  me assuming  the retirement age to be   60 as existing in many other RECs. Probably, as  I suspected, the fact was  concealed by somebody. Then they asked why I have applied only  for the  post  of Director  of NIT Calicut and had not given any option for other  institutes. I said  “ I had  been  working in  my institute for the  last 32  years and have done  whatever I could do in  bringing up the  institution in different  capacities. If  a chance is given to me to be  the  Director at my  institute, I   have clear  idea  of how  to develop the institute forward. At this late  stage in my career, I am not interested  in hunting  for  my fortune elsewhere”. The  Chairman  of the  interview  panel  then said “ As  a matter  of policy, we  have decided  not to appoint a person as Director  in his own  institution”.  After  the interview, I collected  my airfare and returned  to Calicut. Anyway,  my intention   of appearing  for the  interview was to establish my eligibility and never had a hope of getting selected under a court direction.

 

However, I came  to know about some  undercurrents behind the  interview those  days. In New Delhi, I was staying with a cousin  of mine and while  discussing  my prospects, he was  telling me there  is no point  in simply attending the interview. If you want  to get appointed,  something  more has to be done. Appointment  orders were  being  issued  from the PMO’s office. I asked  him to find out how  much and promised  him whatever expenses  that he incurs  in this  enquiry will  be  refunded. This, I had asked him before  going  for the interview. When  I returned after the interview, he said he has collected the  information from two sources. One from the  ruling party which  will cost something like 10 lakhs and the  information from an opposition party which may need an additional 10% or so as  extra expenses. I was wondering  when  this had  to be  paid. He said, just a  promise is enough and the payment can  be made only after  getting the appointment order in your hand. I had  heard that some amount was being collected  by the ruling party even in academic appointments and now I came face  to face  with  it. Anyway, I was  not interested  in such an appointment to the  Director’s post and  returned home. A person from  Maharashtra, who was a professor in a minor department in I.I.T. Madras  was appointed as  the Director.  The  former   principal of REC  who was allowed to  continue as the first  director  of NITC  also could  not get his term extended and he resigned  in huff and  sought an appointment in a self-financing college  in Tamil Nadu.