No eligibility for colleges without principals

The University of Pune will not grant eligibility to those colleges and recognised institutions, which admit students to first-year courses for the academic year 2010-11, despite not having a full-time principal/director in place, as sought by the Supreme Court, university vice-chancellor R K Shevgaonkar said here on Tuesday.

"We are bound by the apex court's order and we won't allow admissions at such colleges unless they have either adhered to the court's directive or have secured relief from the court," Shevgaonkar said.

According to the UoP's revised list of colleges/institutions without full-time principals/directors, as posted on July 20, there are still 203 affiliated colleges and 73 recognised institutions across Pune, Nashik and Ahmednagar districts, which continue to operate without the key appointees.

Of these, Pune accounts for 119 colleges and 45 institutions, followed by Nashik (54 colleges/20 institutions) and Ahmednagar (30 colleges /eight institutions).

"We have asked these colleges/institutions in no uncertain terms that they cannot admit students to the first-year of their degree courses," said Shevgaonkar.

Referring to problems like finding PhD qualified candidates for the key posts, Shevgaonkar said, "We (UoP) appreciate that this is a social problem, but the solution does not lie with us. We all are bound by the Supreme Court directive and cannot be party to contempt of court," he said.

It may be noted that the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court had in December 2008, passed a ruling that laid a time-bound programme for state universities to ensure that all government-run, aided and unaided affiliated colleges and recognised institutions have full-time principals/directors in place before May 31, 2009.

The high court had then ordered that colleges/institutions defaulting on the deadline shall be prevented by the university from effecting admissions to first-year degree course for 2009-10. It also ordered action like deaffiliation for continuing default.

Some of the colleges/institutions had moved the Supreme Court against the high court ruling and the apex court had then granted a year's extension to let them effect the appointments by May 31, 2010. Yet, the situation barely improved after the revised deadline.

The UoP took a firm stance on implementing the court directive, prompting yet another round of litigation in the Supreme Court, which has now granted another extension of six months for making the key appointments. The relief, however, is applicable only to those colleges/institutions which moved the apex court. Those who have not take any steps to effect the appointments are bound to face the university's action.