To
The Hon’ble Chief Minister,
Punjab, Chandigarh
Subject: Immediate Removal of Vice Chancellor of Guru
Nanak Dev
University and High Level
Probe into his misdeeds and criminal acts.
Sir,
Punjab
Human Rights Organisation (PHRO) has received a number of complaints against
Prof. A S Brar, Vice Chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar
From
inquiry it appears that Guru
Nanak Dev
University
His
appointment as Vice Chancellor is not
less than mystery. It has been learnt from reliable sources that Vice
Chancellorship of GNDU has been given to Prof A S Brar as a reward for the role
played by him in the purchase of land at Ghudda (Bhatinda) for setting up the
central university in Punjab . It has come to our
notice that this land indirectly belongs to your family. It has also come to our
notice that the said land was purchased at the rate of ca. Rs 28 lakh per acre,
whereas the market price at that time was about 5 lakhs per acre. A complaint
was lodged in this regard and the Central Government had set up a committee to
verify the facts. Prof A S Brar was a member of this fact finding committee that
gave a clean chit to the entire deal. It is learnt that due to this favour by
the Prof A S Brar to your family, you rewarded him with Vice Chancellorship of
GNDU ignoring the merit of all other aspirants. After taking over the
charge he has destroyed the academic environment and the administrative system
of the university established over the last four decades. At present, every
section of the University is gasping for breath and the university is on the
verge of collapse. The wrong doings of the Vice chancellor and the extent of
damage can be judged from the following facts and figures. PHRO team inquired
and found Prof A S Brar guilty on the following counts:
A: University
Losses and Personal Gains.
B: Selection
and Promotion Irregularities.
C: Academic
Changes.
D: Violation
of University Calendar.
E: Lawlessness
in University.
F: Self
Glorification.
A.
University
Losses and Personal Gains
1. In
a civil revision no 5687 (2008) filed in Hon’ble High court of Punjab and
Haryana, the Vice Chancellor instructed the University Counsel to give an
undertaking to the effect that the university shall vacate the premises of Guru
Nanak Dev University College, a constituent college of the university under its
legal possession since the establishment of the university in 1969. It is
pertinent to mention that this college was the constituent college of Punjab University ,
Chandigarh Guru Nanak
Dev University Justice
SD Anand of Punjab
and Haryana High Court observed that the counsel appearing on the behalf of the
university gave the undertaking that “University shall vacate the premises
under reference within one year from today. He further made it clear that the
university does not offer any resistance to this petition of merit thereof”
(copy of the judgement and few relevant news-paper cuttings are attached at Pages
1 to 7).
It needs to be mentioned that
the Vice Chancellor did not either seek or obtain authorisation from the
syndicate for giving an undertaking to withdraw the University’s claim on the
said premises. At whose behest and for whose gains the VC has taken this
extreme step causing a loss of more than 200 crores to the University, needs to
be investigated. There is a rumour that Bikram Singh Majithia has interest in
this land. It is also necessary to
mention here that Dr S. P. Singh and Dr Jairup Singh former VCs disclosed that
they were pressurized to withdraw their claim on these premises. Dr S. P. Singh
has even told that he was offered bribe for this purpose.
Another important dimension of
the said case is that immediately after GNDU withdrew its claim on the said
premises, the Punjab Government allotted new
premises to GNDU for shifting the university college. These premises belonged
to Punjab Technical University Railway
Station Road Government College GND University Punjab Government were
hands in gloves in this type of exchange of public and university properties.
2.
To
please his political masters i.e. the Badal family, the Vice Chancellor agreed
to take over Government College Patti (Tarn Tarn )
a sick college without any financial help from the Government. The VC has owned
up a huge financial liability in running this college without permanent
provision of funds. Also he has opened a Regional Centre at Fattu Dhinga
(Sultanpur Lodhi) at his own wish. For this campus, an expenditure of Rs. 8
crore has either been incurred or committed in the current financial year.
One fails to understand the urgency behind the opening of this campus without
even a letter of intent from the state or the centre government, what to talk
of financial provisions. This campus is causing an unbearable drain on the
already fragile financial status of the university. Also it is beyond our understanding
that on one hand the central government is giving grants liberally for opening
new colleges, on the other the university has opened this regional centre on
its own when it is already finding it difficult to meet its current financial
needs.
3.
The
VC started a programme of construction of buildings on the campus without any
demand, advice or planning from any department of the university.
The only purpose of this unwanted construction seems to make wrongful gains
from big contracts for these buildings. The university has a statutory
provision of planning board which is constituted every year but the present
Vice Chancellor has rendered it to a defunct body which is never consulted for
any strategic change at the university level.
4.
The
outsourcing for the cleanliness of the university campus has been given to a
person from Abohar, who has no experience of the same, but is closely
associated with Prof. A S Brar. What is more serious is
that about 30 employees who were working on fixed salary were removed from the
service just to favour the firm.
5.
Printing
of answer sheets in a new style has been allotted to a firm of Lucknow
B; Selections and Promotions
Scam
Vice
Chancellor is flouting all the rules and norms in promotion of teachers under
CAS and selections of new teachers for the main campus and the constituent
colleges. The most authentic proof of illegalities in the selection is provided
by the fact that the syndicate proceedings must carry the selection committee
proceedings. This requirement is the part of the University Calendar and it has
been strictly followed in the past but ever-since Prof. A S Brar joined as Vice
Chancellor, he has stopped this practice obviously to hide his misdeeds in the
selection of University Teachers.
6. In
the fresh appointment of Assistant Professors, the VC has committed gross and
indefensible irregularities (copies attached at pages 8-21) which are narrated
as under.
a.
There
is rampant cutting and overwriting in the marks awarded to give favour in
the following cases:
·
(Page
19) Ms Arpana d/o Sh. Gian Chand who has been selected as Assistant Professor
in English for Bebe Nanki University College Mithra, was awarded 41 marks in
total (which were equal to the marks of the second candidate). Then for reasons
known to Vice Chancellor, her marks were changed to 53 marks. The third
candidate has been shown as selected for Mukandpur College
·
(Page
14 a & b) An interview for the post of Lecturer in Electronics Technology
was held on 12-06-2010 at 10.45 AM in the office of VC. One of the candidates, Dr
Dalveer Kaur scored the highest marks as
per her score card (54.35 out of 80) but the VC wanted to favour one Mr.
Balwinder Raj who had only 34.50 marks out of 80 in his score card. Therefore, he was awarded 9 marks out of 10,
both for oral presentation and communication skills which brought his total to
52.40. Despite the fact that Dr. Dalveer Kaur was awarded just 2 and 1 marks in
oral presentation and communication skills, her total score came to 57.35 which
was the highest among all the candidates. Yet Balwinder Raj was selected.
·
(Page
21) Dr Sumneet Kaur d/o Sh. Harinder Pal Singh who was selected as Assistant Professor
in English for GNDU campus Amritsar, was awarded a total of 20 marks for the
component titled ‘Academic Record and Research Performance’ in the first
instance. Later the figure for this component was changed to 30 to favour her.
b.
There are cases wherein the Vice Chancellor has awarded marks more than the
maximum permissible score. There are 20 marks for interview but the
following candidates have been given 25 marks out of 20.
·
Ms
Sonika Thakur d/o Sh Sham Lal Thakur (Page 11, 13, 15)
·
Maninder
Kaur d/o Sh Jasvir Singh (Page 11)
·
Mr
Gurpreet Singh s/o Sh Sarwan Singh
(Page 13, 15)
c.
There are cases in which a candidate appeared
only once in an interview on 19-9-2011 at 2.30 pm in Vice Chancellor Office,
but the selection committee has assigned different scores for different
colleges/campuses for which s/he applied. The following cases are sufficient to
conclude that selection of teachers at GNDU at large, are based on the
arbitrary decisions of the Vice Chancellor based on every consideration except merit.
·
Ms Raman Preet Kaur d/o Sh.
Pargat Singh Aulakh was awarded 72 marks when selection proceeding for Verka
College of Arts, Science and Commerce was prepared but she was awarded 74 marks
when selection proceeding for Chung college
of Arts
·
Ms Sonika Thakur d/o Sh Sham
Lal Thakur was awarded 74 marks when selection proceedings for Narot Jaimal
Singh college of Arts
·
In another case Mr Gurpreet
Singh s/o Sh Sarwan Singh was awarded 75 marks when selection proceedings for
Narot Jaimal Singh were prepared but he was awarded 67 marks when selection
proceedings for Chung college
of Art
d.
There
are discrepancies in the interview conducted by the GNDU for the post of
Assistant Professors, Department of Electronics and Engineering at Amritsar
·
As
per information provided by University under RTI, Interview for GNDU, Regional
campus was conducted at 11:30 a.m on 22.6.2012, whereas the call letters show
interview time as 2:30 p.m. on 22.6.2012. On one hand, University provided
information that result are based on Academic record & research
performance, Assessment of domain knowledge & teaching skills (till the
filing of application) and interview performance. On the other hand, copy of
result shows that the selection of candidate has been made on the basis of
their academic record and the teaching experience up to date of interview.
·
For
the GNDU, Regional Campus, Fattu Dhinga (Kapurthala) candidates at merit No.2, 15,
16 and 25 were selected but candidate with higher percentage in M. Tech., were
ignored.
·
It
was shown that one Sumit Garg at Serial No. 6 has 82.78% percent in B. Tech. is
and 73.09% in M. Tech., but HOD Department of Electronics and Engineering of
GNDU shows his percentage in M. Tech as 82.78 percent.
·
What
a mockery of system that 10 candidates namely Sumit Garg, Rajan Vohra, Livjeet
Kaur, Kuldeep Singh, Jaspreet Kaur, Rajdeep Singh Sohal, Sehajjpal Kaur,
Simarpreet Kaur, Navalpreet Kaur and Ajaybir Kaur appeared in three different
interviews at different times but they awarded same marks which shows that
whole interview process was stage managed and only a drama performed by the
Prof. A S Brar and his team (Complete and irrefutable evidence along with brief
report is annexed from Page 22 to 64)
e.
A
similar process of biasedness was adopted in interviews conducted for posts of
Assistant Professor on contract basis in the Departments of Electronics and Engineering
for Amritsar
(A brief report in this
regard is annexed at Page 65, 66 but evidence running into hundreds of pages is
being withheld for the time being but will be made available to the investigating
agency)
7. A
similar scenario of favouritism is seen in the promotion of teachers in the
Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) of the UGC. Many teachers have been denied promotions on one pretext or other (names
of few teachers along with selection proceeding attached at pages 67-70). As
per UGC guidelines, teachers are promoted to the next professional level on the
basis of their API score. In this promotion process, there are two stages: one
is the composition of the selection committee and the other is the selection
procedure. The wrong is being done on both the counts, the constitution of the
selection committee and adoption of the selection procedure. The requirement as
per the UGC guidelines, is the appointment of three experts from a panel of
experts approved by the concerned department’s Board of Control, the decision
making body of the department. The Vice
Chancellor, to everyone’s shock and surprise has been appointing experts on his
own, disregarding the list submitted by concerned Board of Control (Copy of
the rule is attached at Pages 71-76).
8. The dates of eligibility of
several teachers have been changed in clear violation of the UGC rules (list
of names and copies of proceedings attached at pages 77-81). Several teachers
promoted under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) have been granted promotion from
the date of interview rather than the date of eligibility. The UGC rule in this
respect clearly specifies that the promotion will be from the date of
eligibility. The arbitrary changes in the dates of promotion of the candidates
are illegal, and outside the purview of the VC or the selection committee.
Moreover, a candidate when applies for the promotion, submits his professional
work only up to his/her date of eligibility. If promotion is given from the
date of interview, the faculty member clearly suffers a loss because the amount
of academic and research work done by him from the date of eligibility to the
date of interview goes unaccounted, unrecognized and unrewarded. Even in the
selection procedure, arbitrary and whimsical methods are being adopted. The UGC
rules require the selection procedures to be ‘transparent, objective and
credible’. The rules specify the selection to be based on two things: the
minimum API score and opinion formed by the Expert Assessment Committee on the
basis of three criteria:
a. Contribution
to research - 50%
b. Domain
knowledge - 30%
c. Interview
performance -20%
As per
the norms, a candidate is very much eligible to be promoted if he gets 50% of
the total score and cannot be denied the promotion on any pretext. Shockingly,
the candidates with quite high API score were denied promotions and rejected
giving flimsy argument of unsatisfactory interview performance. It is
surprising that the interview performance which has been accorded 20% of the
total weightage has been given overriding significance ignoring the excellent
teaching and research accomplishments. Such a selection procedure cannot be
called objective by any standard and smells of a negative and prejudiced mind-set
of the man in chair.
In
clear violation of the UGC rules and recommendations, dates of eligibilities of
promotion of the following teachers have been changed without assigning any
reason.
|
S. No
|
Name
of the Teacher and Department
|
Due Date for Promotion
|
Recommendations of the Selection Committee
|
Promoted w.e.f
|
|
1
|
Dr
Damanjit Kaur, Department of Chemistry
|
12-08-2009
|
Promoted
|
20-09-2011
|
|
2
|
Dr
Jaspal Singh, Department of Law
|
01-01-2009
|
Promoted
|
24-09-2011
|
|
3
|
Dr
Anish Dua, Department of Zoology
|
22-11-2010
|
Promoted
|
16-08-2011
|
|
4
|
Dr.
Satwinder Kaur Dhillon, Department of Zoology
|
01-09-2009
|
Promoted
|
16-08-2011
|
|
5
|
Dr
|
21-09-2009
|
Promoted
|
03-02-2012
|
It is
submitted that:
a. According
to the UGC notification no. F.3-1/2009 dated June 30, 2010, clause 6.3.1 which
states that “............ candidates who fulfil all other criteria mentioned in
these regulations, as on 31 December, 2008 and till the date on which this
regulation is notified, can be considered for promotion from the date, on or
after 31 December, 2008, in which they fulfil these eligibility conditions,
provided as mentioned above”. It is clearly mentioned that who fulfil the
eligibility conditions on a given date (eligibility date) is eligible for
promotion from the said date rather than any other date. Nowhere, it is
mentioned that Chairman or the selection committee can change the date of
eligibility, but the Vice Chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University is doing it.
b. When
the academic and research work submitted for evaluation for promotion under CAS
was till the date of eligibility and not beyond that date, how chairman of the
selection committee decided the date of promotion other than the date of
eligibility, which has resulted into a loss of about 2 or more years in
majority of the cases.
9. Copies
of selection proceeding procured under
RTI act revealed that they have been tampered (copies of selection
proceedings at pages 78-81). As per established practice, when a teacher
applies for promotion his/her date of eligibility for promotion is verified by
the establishment branch of the university, and further endorsed by the
scrutiny committee which consist of Dean Academic affairs, Head of the
Department, Senior Professor from the Department, Dean Faculty and Director Research.
But in the selection committee proceedings, Vice Chancellor has changed the
dates of eligibility in his own handwriting obviously without the knowledge of
other members of the selection committee as these changes do not carry the
attestation of other members of the selection committee. This amounts to
tampering of official records which remain in the custody of the Vice
Chancellor in his capacity as the chairman of various selection committees.
10. The
UGC guidelines clearly lay down that the university
should work out the modalities for promotion of teachers under the Career
Advancement Scheme, but in open defiance of these guidelines, the VC has
declared on several occasions that he shall not set up any modality committee. In
the absence of such modalities, the VC is taking all the decisions arbitrarily.
11. There
are unjustified delays in processing the
cases of promotion of teachers. As per UGC rules a promotion case has to be
processed within a period of 6 months from the date of application. But there
are several cases pending for more than one year. This is being done to harass
the teachers and force them into humble submission and procrastination before
the Vice Chancellor. While on one hand, the VC has unleashed a reign of terror
and suppression among the faculty in general, on the other he has crossed all
the limits of favouritism to cause undeserved gain to the yes men of his
coterie.
12. Mr R.S. Virk (Brother-in-Law of
VC) has been promoted as Reader, Department of Computer Science and
Engineering, ignoring the same criteria on the basis of which other teachers
were denied promotions.
13. Appointment
of BhartInderbir Kaur, as Assistant Professor in the department of Guru Nanak
Studies, who is post graduate in Punjabi but the post for which she is
appointed requires a post-graduation in religious studies. The appointment has been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court, but the
university along with candidate has filed an appeal. If the affected candidate challenges
the decision of the court it is understandable but why the university has challenged
the decision of the court needs to be investigated (Copy of the judgment is
attached at pages 82 - 89) .
14. The appointment of Dr Gurpreet Kaur
as Professor in the Department of Music is illegal. She
does not fulfil the requirements as specified in the UGC regulations on Minimum
Qualifications for the appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in
universities and colleges for the maintenance of standards in higher education
2010. The following were the shortcomings at the time of her appointment
(copies of the relevant pages of the legal notice and information sought under
RTI are given at pages 91-93, 100-:112)
a. She
didn’t have the required experience of guiding research at doctoral level
b. She
didn’t have the requisite number of ten publications for the post of professor.
c. Dr
Gurnam Singh, Department of Music, Punjabi University Patiala was one of the
referees mentioned in the application of Dr Gurpreet Kaur, he was also the
member of the scrutiny committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor to verify
the API score claimed by Dr Gurpreet Kaur and it didn’t stop here as he was
also one of the experts in the selection committee constituted for the final
selection.
15. The appointment of Dr Sandeep
Sharma as an associate professor in the department of computer science and
engineering is illegal (copies of the relevant pages of a legal notice and
information sought under RTI is given at pages 93-99, and 113-125).
He didn’t fulfil the criteria at the time of appointment on the following counts:
a. After
receiving the applications, establishment branch of the university send those
applications to the head of concerned department, s/he assesses the eligibility
of the candidates and recommend the name of eligible candidates only for
further processing. But in this case Head of the department gave a note “Not
Eligible” on the application of Dr Sandeep Sharma. But for the reasons best
known to the university, the case was further processed and scrutiny committee
declared him eligible.
b. He
didn’t have the requisite experience of eight years of teaching and/or research
in an academic/research position equivalent to that of assistant professor in a
university, college or accredited research institution/industry.
c. He
didn’t have requisite minimum score of 300 points in the Academic Performance Indicators
(API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS).
d. It
is interesting to note and it has happened first time in the history of the
university that the candidate claims 338 points as API Score but the scrutiny
committee constituted for the verification of the said score gives him 356
points. It needs to be investigated how this score has been calculated and how
it increased after the submission of the application.
16. The appointments of several principals
in the constituent colleges (Verka college of Art, Science and Commerce, Narot Jaimal
Singh Colleges of Arts, Science and Commerce, Chung College of Arts, Science
and Commerce and Mithra College of Arts, Science and Commerce) of GNDU,
Amritsar are illegal (copies of relevant pages of a legal notice, information
sought under RTI and court proceedings are given at pages, 125-149). The
following are the violations in case of appointment of principals.
a.
For the appointment of
principal in a college a candidate requires 400 points in API based Performance
Based Appraisal System along with other qualifications but none of the
principals appointed had the required API score of 400 points.
b.
The committee constituted for
the purpose of verification of API Score clearly appended a note in its report
that none of the applicants fulfils the conditions as specified in the
advertisement given for the post of principals. But to ensure backdoor entry of
the favoured candidates, the committee recommended that candidates who were
already approved as principals of the constituent colleges of GNDU should be
considered as qualified for the post of principals subject to the approval of
the Syndicate. The following issues need to be investigated.
i.
As these appointments were fresh
and advertised accordingly but how appointments can be made by relaxing
conditions laid down without re-advertising the changed conditions.
ii.
Were the members of the
scrutiny committee competent to make the above said recommendations? The
recommendations were made by the committee on 25-3-2011.
iii.
The Vice Chancellor was in a hurry
to approve the same in anticipation of the approval of the syndicate. He
approved the said recommendations on 4-4-2011.
iv.
The Dean Academic Affairs Dr R
K Pawar submitted the details to seek orders of the Vice Chancellor for
constituting a selection committee and date of interview. She submitted the
file for orders of the Vice Chancellor on 6-4-2011.
v.
Another note seeking orders of
the vice chancellor to consider Dr Gurjant Singh, Dr Rakesh Mohan and Dr
Barinder Kaur who were not approved as principals of constituent colleges of
GNDU for the post of principals of university colleges. This note was moved on
18-4-2011 and the same was approved by the Vice Chancellor the next day (19-4-2011).
c.
Deputy
Controller Local Audit objected to the appointment of ineligible persons as Principals.
He quoted a rule of the Punjab Government
which clearly states that qualifications of a post advertised cannot be changed
or relaxed afterwards. He also pointed out many other irregularities committed
by the university in this case but university didn’t pay any attention to his
objections.
d.
A writ petition (CWP No 24071
of 2011 Rakesh Mohan Sharma Vs Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar Hon’ble Court
e.
Recently (13-03-2013) a
sycophant Dr. Jaspal Singh Randhawa who has retired as Principal from the
Lyallpur Khalsa college Jalandhar, has been appointed as Principal of GNDU
College, Jalandhar for 11 months in violation of UGC rules that fix 60 years as
the upper age limit for appointment as principal. Events reported by the staff
of GNDU college, Jalandhar indicate Dr Randhawa is a man of dubious character
(copy of the letter written to VC is attached at page 150)
Dr Rajinder Kaur Pawar, the then Dean Academic Affairs
misused her office and was instrumental in executing the nefarious designs of
the Vice Chancellor. She is an equal partner in all these misdoings of the Vice
Chancellor. The illegalities and irregularities of the
cases mentioned at 14, 15 and 16 have been pointed out in detail in a legal
notice served by one of the university teachers to the university.
17. Mr. H.S. Randhawa was working
as Assistant Director Sports (Campus). When he applied for the post of Director
Sports, he could not make up 400 points required for the post. After this, the
post of Assistant Director Sports (Campus) was merged with the sports
department of the University. Then he was made the
officiating Director Sports the post for which he was found ineligible earlier.
18. The
composition of the selection committee for the post of assistant professor in
colleges including private colleges requires two subject experts not connected
with the college to be nominated by the chairperson of the governing body of
the college out of a panel of five names recommended by the Vice Chancellor
from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the
university concerned. The ‘Boards of
Control’ of different departments as per university statutes, are competent and
relevant statutory bodies to approve the list of subject experts. But the Vice
Chancellor has no regard for university bodies and has never asked any
department to send a list of such experts approved by their Board of Control.
He has been recommending experts out of his own wish.
19. The Vice Chancellor has been
sending retired teachers as his nominees and subject experts for the selection
of assistant professors and for screening of applicants for promotions in
colleges which is a clear violation of recommendation given by high powered
committee for re-employment of retired teachers (Copy
of the rules is attached at 151, 152).
20. VC is strongly defending the
case of Director Youth Welfare, Mrs Jagjeet Kaur who submitted a forged LPC
(Last Pay Certificate) for higher salary fixation than was due to her.
To make things even easier for her, Dr Surinder Singh, the then Dean Academic
Affairs, was asked to conduct a sort of enquiry whose outcome has not been made
public so far and the lady is in the post enjoying the patronage of the VC
(Copy of the letter written by the college clearly mentioning this forgery is
attached at page 153).
C: Academic Changes
The
Vice Chancellor has ordered several changes in the academic provisions of the university
which will have a long term negative impact on the academic environment of the
university.
21. The
time-tested system of Research Degree
Committees for the approval of Ph. D. programmes has been scrapped without any
discussion in any of the statutory bodies. It will adversely affect the quality
of research in the university.
22. He is appointing experts for
evaluation of Ph.D. theses out of his own will. In the
established procedure, the Head of the Department in consultation with the
supervisor sends a list out of which three experts are appointed for the
evaluation of the thesis. In open violation of the system, he is appointing experts
of his choice even in the faculties of Social Sciences and Languages in which
he has no expertise or knowledge. This is obviously a mockery of the whole
procedure of evaluation of doctoral research.
23. He
started Credit Based Evaluation System in the university without discussion and
approval in any of the university bodies meant for the purpose, viz. Under Graduate
Board of Studies, Post Graduate Board of Studies and the Academic Council. The suitability of the system was not
evaluated before its introduction. This has resulted into a large number of
Court cases against the university and the university has lost most of these
cases for lack of procedure and order.
24. The class size has been
increased to more than 100 in some departments by violating the norms of the
UGC/AICTE which clearly states that maximum number of students in a class
cannot be more than 60. In the process, the quality of
education and instruction has been compromised.
D: Violations of University Calendar
The
Vice Chancellor has no respect for either the university or its Calendar. The
University calendar has seems to have lost all relevance and the Vice Chancellor
treats the university as his personal fiefdom rather than an educational institution
which was created with a well-defined mandate and purpose.
25. The
calendar provides for the promotion of the Punjabi language but the VC has always adopted an anti-Punjabi
stance both in his utterances and actions. He tried to downsize and
downgrade the status of Punjabi in the course curricula but he had to retrace
his steps due to resistance from several quarters.
26. Except the Registrar, all other
important positions are being run on adhoc basis just to favour some men of his
choice and maintain his stranglehold upon them. Some
of these positions are being given to members of the Syndicate to please them
and get anti teacher items approved by them.
27. The
services of Mr. Nakul Kundra, Assistant Professor, ASSSM College
28. The
Vice Chancellor is adopting a policy of pick and choose in the spheres which
come under his purview. For instance,
extension after retirement is being granted only to his favourites. Out of
37 teachers who retired during his tenure, extension was given to only 21 of
them. What is worse, merit was completely ignored in granting these extensions.
This is clearly proved by the fact that some of the teachers who were denied
extension by the Vice Chancellor have been conferred with prestigious awards
including Professor Emeritus of the UGC and Scientist Emeritus of the Council
of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
29. Recently
the VC has conferred a Ph.D. Degree
(Honoris Causa) on Dr Shiv Raj Nakade who has an ordinary bio data and has not done
anything for the interest and mandate of the University. It needs to be
investigated whether the degree was awarded to Mr Nakade for his contributions
or for extraneous reasons (Copy of news items showing closeness of Dr Shiv Raj
Nakade with Governor is attached at page 154).
E: Lawlessness in University
30. In
the absence of effective administration and check, the University has become a
den of illegal activities. On April 24 (10.30 pm) it was found that the main
library building named after noted and highly respected Sikh Scholar Bhai
Gurdas Ji was being misused for gambling during evening hours (copies of the
newspaper cuttings attached at pages 155, 156). Two of the security personnel
of the university and six outsiders were caught on the spot. A sum of Rs 6000,
a bottle of liquor and a pack of cigarettes were seized from them. It was
revealed that these two security personnel used to provide the premises to the
gamblers in lieu of a hefty sum, charged on per hour basis (copies of the news
items are attached). The security officer claims that a fine of Rupees 5000 has
been imposed on two outsiders and the security men involved in the episode have
been dismissed from their job and that an amount of 16000 has been deposited in
the university exchequer as fine charged from the accused.
But in
our understanding, this is simply an attempt to cover up large scale and
organized misuse of the university premises with tacit approval of the
authorities. Our doubts arise from the fact that the security personnel have
been asked to resign and they have not been dismissed. Secondly the incident involved
outsiders and was therefore a fit case to be handed over to the police but
nothing of the type has been done. The whole matter should have been handed
over to the police for thorough investigation. There is a serious doubt a group
of drug peddlers and gamblers, is running a racket in connivance with the
university authorities.
Dr H.
S. Chopra is squarely responsible for all the activities on the library
premises but no action has been taken against him simply because he is
regularly sending to the vice chancellor a part of the illegal money made from
the purchase of books for the library. The whole matter needs to be
investigated thoroughly to unearth the quantum and gravity of immoral and
financial bungling.
31. The arbitrary and flagrant
style of working of the VC has resulted in large scale litigation against the
university. Information procured by the Guru Nanak Dev
University Teachers Association under RTI revealed that as many as 649 cases were filed against the university in the three and
half years (since the joining of the present VC). The university has lost
most of these cases. What is worse, the university officials have been found
providing false and misleading information to the court (Copy of the first and
last page of information sought under RTI is attached at pages 157, 158).
32. The
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has taken a serious view of the
situation. It has passed strictures against the VC. In one of the cases, the Hon’ble
judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
conveyed to the university counsel that if more cases of violation of rules
come to his notice, he would recommend
the registration of a criminal case against the VC. The University Counsel Mr
Amritpal conveyed the observations of the court to the Vice Chancellor in a written
communication (copy attached at page 159, 160).
F: Self-Glorification
33. Instead
of UGC guidelines and the university calendar, the university is being run on
the advice of some sycophants who keep on feeding his ego. As the worst example
of this mind-set, VC asked men in his coterie to compile a book of praises
titled “Jiwan Parvaz”. The contributors in this book have heaped praises on the
VC which he hardly deserves. The contributors are direct beneficiaries of
favouritism by the Vice Chancellor. To quote some of the examples, a
contributor of a chapter of this book Dr AK Thukral was given extension as
Director Research even after his superannuation. Similarly, another contributor
Dr Balwant Singh Dhillon was made the director of Studies in Guru Garnth Sahib
after his retirement. In the same line, Dr GS Virk was made the Director
Regional Centre Sathiala after his retirement. Here it is pertinent to mention
that Dr GS Virk belongs to the discipline of Botany, whereas the Regional
Centre Sathiala runs only two streams: computer science and engineering and
management. How far he can do justice to
his job is questionable. Dr Gupreet Kaur has been made professor in music even
when she does not fulfil the required criteria. Her appointment has already
been questioned through a legal notice. In one of the articles, Dr JK Dhillon, contributor of a chapter in
the book has equated him with the great martyr ‘Shaheed Bhagat Singh’
(photocopy of relevant page attached at page 161). Here it is not possible to
name every contributor in the book, but some other names, who have crossed all
limits of sycophancy include S Harbans Singh Security Officer, Dr HC Sharma
ex-PRO, Mrs Jagjit Kaur director Youth Welfare. In this cow-web of sycophants
there are several other persons who always surround the Vice Chancellor who
enjoys this kind of behaviour. In this scenario of sycophancy, he ignores the
genuine interests of the university and is not able to see the writing on the
wall that nothing is well with the university.
34. VC
submitted a proposal to the Punjab government
to start Progressive Education Society for training the students from rural
areas for IIT entrance test. The government accepted the proposal and provided
Rs. 1.5 crore per annum. This society
was supposed to function from university campus but was shifted to Khalsa
College Public School where his wife is the principal. The accounts of the
society need to be investigated as we suspect large scale bungling of funds.
35. It
needs to be investigated that for how
many days the VC stayed at campus since his appointment. He is always on
one or another inspection/selection to make money.
From the
above said facts and evidence it is clear that Prof. A S Brar, VC of GNDU is
indulging in large scale irregularities and criminal acts including tampering
of records. From the statements of teaching and non-teaching staff of the
University it is clear that he is working as a dictator who has no respect for rules
and regulations. He has forced the University into large scale litigation.
During inquiry we were told that a delegation of Guru Nanak Dev University
Teachers association met the Chancellor on February 6, 2013 and submitted a
memorandum of complaints. But the Chancellor, instead of taking action forwarded
these complaints to Prof. A S Brar. The Vice Chancellor has started a program
of victimization and harassment of the complainants. It is also learnt that Prof.
A S Brar has conferred an honorary degree of doctorate to Mr Shiv Raj Nakade on
the behest of the Chancellor. It is mentioned that Mr Nakade has an ordinary
bio-data and he has not done anything in the interest of Guru Nanak Dev
University Amritsar or the society at large. His only qualification seems to be
that he belongs to the same district (Latur) and the state (Maharashtra) as the
Chancellor.
There
is no hope of Justice from you as Prof A S Brar is your blue eyed person who
has done a number of illegal activities on your behest but keeping in view the legal
formalities, this report is being sent to you with a request to get the matter inquired
from a Retd. High Court Judge.
This
Report is also being sent to the complainants with the advice to move the
Hon’ble High Court if the Chief Minister fails to act within 15 days on this
report because there is enough evidence to convict Prof. A S Brar for his
misdeeds and illegal acts.
(Justice
Ajit Singh Bains (Retd))
(Sarabjit Singh Verka)
Chairman Principal Investigator
2 टिप्पणियां:
Good blog !!!!!
Thanks for sharing...
Research Papers
You are try to write your dissertation or thesis and struggle with something that is new. M.tech and Phd thesis writing and guidance services with external mentorship in Amritsar, Chandigarh and Patiala. For any imformation contact us : 9653159085
एक टिप्पणी भेजें