Status quo on HASA binding on NEHU VC: Teachers

SHILLONG: NEHUTA on Monday alleged that by taking the name of President of India, tamasha is enacted by the NEHU’s Vice-Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor without any propriety as far as HASA is concerned.
The NEHU administration cannot create confusions to citizens by not distinguishing the President of India and the President of India acting as Visitor of NEHU.
The Vice-Chancellor Prof. S.K. Srivastava communicated to the office of the Visitor an appeal from Executive Council dated April 27, asking for continuation of payment of HASA. “However, VC sent fabricated and fictitious minutes of Executive Council”, NEHUTA said.
In the academic council held on May 17, the whole council decried such a manipulative alteration of the letter number 529 sent from the Vice-Chancellor as the Chairman of the Executive Council, while the response from MHRD cited a different letter with a different number 531, NEHUTA said.
It is once again a clear case of Vice-Chancellor himself writing a different letter in the name of Executive Council, of which he is the Chairman, NEHUTA alleged, adding that when the Academic Council pointed this out, the VC had no other option but to withdraw this letter that came from MHRD with the number 531.
He could not provide any documentary evidence on the floor of the Academic Council to support the claim that content of these two letters 529 and 531 are the same. Neither was he able to justify why two different letters were sent on the same matter to two different offices of the Centre, NEHUTA said.
The Executive Council meeting held on May 15, had resolved that matter should be placed before the academic council.
“But the Vice-Chancellor in a deceptive manner decided to send a fictitious Executive Council resolution stating ‘the Council resolved to humbly accept the direction of the honourable Visitor’, which resulted in a further advisory to the Vice-Chancellor from D. Ramakrishna Rao, Deputy Secretary, MHRD in the name of Government of India to implement this decision of the Executive Council as informed to him, which has never been adopted, as referred”, NEHUTA said, adding that this was how the Vice-Chancellor had misled the office of the Visitor and the Pro-VC is justifying such an act of deliberate misrepresentation.
According to NEHUTA, the sub-ordinate officer (Pro-VC) of the University is giving clean chit to his own appointing officer, i.e., the Vice-Chancellor.
The Pro-VC is claiming that the Visitor directed to repeal the Ordinance, while the Visitor only directed to take action.
The Academic Council and Executive Council have deliberated the directive in its letter and spirit and resolved to maintain status quo on HASA, NEHUTA claimed.
The Visitor’s directive to take action has been complied with by the authorities of the University such as Academic Council by maintaining status quo about HASA, which is binding on the Vice-Chancellor.
NEHUTA said that NEHU Act and statues do not have any provision of repeal of an ordinance. Interestingly, Visitor’s directive to take steps to repeal the concerned ordinance stands out as a major example of how the Vice-Chancellor misled the office of the Visitor, NEHUTA added.