Tell-all book of insider reveals why Madurai Kamaraj University Vice-Chancellor search panel itself was dodgy

MADURAI: An insider’s account on the functioning a search committee that was constituted three years ago to recommend a panel of three names to the Governor for the selection of Vice Chancellor (V-C) for the Madurai Kamaraj University,has opened a can of worms. Mu Ramasamy was one of the three members of the search committee constituted on April 6, 2015 but later resigned in a huff.

He points fingers at C Murukadas, the convener of the committee, for misrepresent facts. For example, the signed minutes of the panel’s meeting on November 17, 2015 states that “the meeting was inconclusive due to the differences noticed in the number of applications received in the office,”but Murukadas wrote to the Governor’s secretariat stating: “the concerned meeting had to be closed earlier due to inclement weather.”

Such shocking anecdotes with documentary proof form part of his recent book titled Agaya Thamaraikalum Aakatha Oorukku Vazhikoorum Thisaikaattikalum. Seventy-eight of the 138 pages in the book contain documents such as letters the members wrote to each other and to the Governor. For instance, Murukadasaccepted the bio-data of a candidate sent even before the search committee was constituted.

The bigger question then is how to get the right search committee, said Ramasamy.

In a letter to Ramasamy, Murukadas wrote that the search committee fixed the norms for choosing the panel and unanimously decided to rank the applicants on the basis of criteria evolved at a meeting held on October 20, 2015, but Ramasamy wrote to the Governor stating no such meeting took place that day.
In another letter to the Governor’s Secretariat, Murukadas said all 142 applications, including those sent to the residential address of the convener, besides others, were forwarded to the convener by the Governor’s office as well as the Higher Education Department. Ramasamy objected to the way applications were received, stating the applications should have been received only by the search committee constituted to select the V-C panel and discussed with all the members of committee.

Ramasamy also alleged that a criterion ensuring that the candidates for V-C should have no pending case against them was intentionally removed by the convener to favour a particular candidate, without the consent of the rest of the members.

Murukadas, in an email to Ramasamy, claimed he was not sponsoring candidate from his community or native place. He was trying to rebut allegations, claiming he was above communal and regional considerations. But Ramasamy asserted that community indeed played a major role in the selection of a V-C.

After academicians opposed the process of V-C selection, the State government promulgated an Ordinance to amend the Tamil Nadu Universities Laws, on May 27, 2017. It was spun as a big-ticket reform but there was not much in terms of guidelines on the selection of the search committee.

Speaking to Express, E Balagurusamy, former Vice Chancellor of Anna University, said that a reputed person without any criminal background should be selected as the convener and as a member of the search committee. He added that the convener should not take any decision on the applications he receives without discussing it with the members of the committee. He also said that the selection of candidates to the panel should only be based on the weightage of criteria framed by the committee and that the convener of the committee should not bow to any political pressure.

Social activist Paadam’ A Narayanan, who had filed a PIL seeking reforms in the selection of the search committee members and the V-C, said, “The major problem is not the difference of opinion between the search committee members but who is selected for the committee. If people with political and bureaucratic connections are selected to the committee, they will simply act as brokers to bring an ineligible person as the V-C.”

He added, “Ramasamy could have shared the documents that he has now given in his book when I filed the PIL in the High Court. If he had supported me with all the documents, the case could have become stronger.”