Inequality in the process of confirming the appointment of the new university registrar: JNUTA

Inequality in the process of confirming the appointment of the new university registrar: JNUTA

New Delhi: The JNU Teachers Association on Saturday alleged that there was inconsistency in the process of confirming the appointment of Professor Anirban Chakraborty as Executive Registrar of the University during its meeting a day earlier.

The teachers’ body also alleged that during Friday’s virtual meeting of the Executive Council, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) vice-chancellor M Jagadish Kumar muted two elected faculty representatives while discussing important agenda matters.

The vice-chancellor appointed Chakraborty, the former dean of the School of Computational and Integrative Sciences, as registrar on 17 March, following which the JNU Teachers Association (JNUTA) alleged that no Executive Council (EC) meeting was deliberate. matter.

The Election Commission said in a statement after the 294th meeting on Friday, “Some faculty members of JNU have tried to create controversy over an appointment which is otherwise a regular process”, adding that the council has appointed Chakraborty as the registrar Has approved the appointment of

In a statement, JNUTA tried to find out how Chakraborty was allowed to hold an Academic Council (AC) meeting on Friday before the Executive Council ratified his appointment.

“While Prof. Jagdish Kumar may get the Election Commission to confirm the appointment, there are several inconsistencies that make the ratification process perfect. JNUTA has come to know that Professor Anirban Chakraborty as per his capacity as Registrar tomorrow Permission was granted to attend yesterday’s meeting, which was approved by the Election Commission.

“However, this question arises, as Professor Chakraborty was allowed to be appointed as Registrar in the 157th Academic Council meeting held on 22 March and to issue important notification before his ratification of the AC meeting,” “It came out.

The teachers’ union said that as per the minutes of the Academic Council meeting, Chakraborty was lodged as a member of the council and as the incumbent registrar.

“A registrar, according to JNU statute, is not a member of the Academic Council, an omission that was pointed out by JNUTA in the Executive Council agenda that was previously circulated”.

In response to the JNU administration’s allegation that some faculty members were trying to “create controversy” over the issue, JNUTA said on Friday that if it had not pointed out “flaws in the process”, the administration would run. Further “without listing this important matter” for discussion in EC.

“The fact that no call was given for an emergency executive council meeting prior to March 17, the date the former registrar ended his term, nor was the matter listed on the agenda circulated on March 19, Clearly indicates that the acting Vice-Chancellor Election Commission did not consider it important to deliberate on its decision.

On Saturday, the teachers’ body also alleged that Kumar had elected two of the important representatives of the Election Commission.

“In fact, without giving them a chance to speak, they instructed their officials to note their dissent, thus not allowing a discussion, perhaps fearing that more members of the Election Commission would see the attitudes of teacher representatives Can be persuaded and JNUTA said add your own dissidents.

One of the two delegates was given permission to speak at the part of the meeting after dealing with “any other matter”.

“JNUTA strongly condemns the selective exercise of discretionary powers by the Chair and the new trend taken by the recording raised a dangerous precedent for future meetings as dissidents took up hands.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *