The academics’ physique additionally alleged that Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Vice-Chancellor M Jagadesh Kumar throughout Friday’s digital assembly of the manager council selected to mute two elected college representatives all through the dialogue on essential agenda issues.
The vice-chancellor had appointed Chakraborti, a former dean of the School of Computational and Integrative Sciences, as registrar on March 17, following which the JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) alleged that there was no Executive Council (EC) assembly to deliberate on the matter.
The EC in an announcement after its 294th assembly on Friday mentioned a “few faculty members of JNU have tried to manufacture a controversy over an appointment which is otherwise a routine process”, and added that the council has permitted the appointment of Chakraborti as registrar.
In an announcement, the JNUTA sought to understand how was Chakraborti allowed to chair a tutorial council (AC) assembly on March 22, earlier than the ratification of his appointment by the manager council on Friday.
“While Prof Jagadesh Kumar might have gotten the EC to ratify the appointment, there are various incongruity that make the process of ratification removed from good. JNUTA has learnt that Prof Anirban Chakraborti was allowed to attend yesterday’s assembly in his capability because the registrar solely after the EC had given its approval.
“However, the question then arises, as to how was Prof Chakraborti allowed to preside as registrar at the 157th Academic Council meeting held on March 22 and issue important notifications before his ratification regarding the AC meeting,” it posed.
The academics’ affiliation famous that in keeping with the minutes of the tutorial council assembly, Chakraborti was recorded each as a member of the council and as incumbent registrar.
“A registrar, according to JNU statutes, is not a member of the academic council, a lapse that had been pointed out by JNUTA in the executive council agenda that had been circulated before,” it mentioned.
In response to the JNU administration’s cost that a number of college members have been attempting to “manufacture a controversy” over the difficulty, the JNUTA on Friday mentioned that if it hadn’t identified “the flaws in the process”, the administration would have gone forward “without listing this important matter” for dialogue in the EC.
“The fact that there was no call given for an emergency executive council meeting before March 17, the date the former registrar ended his term, nor that the matter was listed in the agenda circulated on March 19, clearly indicates that the caretaker vice-chancellor did not think it important to have the EC deliberate on his decision,” it had mentioned.
The academics’ physique on Saturday additionally alleged that Kumar “chose to mute” two of the elected college representatives all through the EC assembly on essential agenda issues.
“In fact, without even giving them a chance to speak, he instructed his officers to note their dissent, thus not allowing a discussion, perhaps fearing that more members of the EC could be persuaded to see the point of view of the teacher representatives and add their own dissents,” the JNUTA mentioned.
One of the 2 representatives was allowed to talk later in the half of the assembly coping with “any other matter”, it added.
“JNUTA strongly condemns the selective exercise of discretionary powers by the Chair and the new trend instituted by him of recording raised hands as dissents as laying a dangerous precedent for future meetings,” it mentioned.