Monday, April 23, 2007

IIM admissions (contd)

The saga of IIM admissions, stalled over the OBC quota issue, drags on. Today the Supreme Court will take up the government's petition. Note, however, that the government has moved swiftly to squelch one of the principal criticisms of the government's order to the IIMs to put admissions on hold. This is that students would end up paying through their nose by way of non-refundable fee(deposit) as they would not be able to finalise their choice of b-school until the IIM admission uncertainty was resolved.

IIM Admission: Don't worry, you can wait now (ET,April 22)

The AICTE has asked all technical education institutions, universities and deemed universities providing technical education, that is managment, engineering, pharmacy, architecture, to only charge a maximum of Rs 1,000 from students who withdraw from a course before the academic session begins.


Fullstory:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/IIM_admission_Dont_worry_you_can_wait_now/articleshow/1935808.cms

Critics say that the SC has only put OBC quotas on hold, so why should the others suffer? As I have argued earlier, the counter to this could be: why should only the OBC category suffer?

On Times Now TV the other day, Harish Salve pointed out that there was no outcry when the SC stayed the Mandal Commission recommendations on quotas on government jobs, so why the hullabaloo over the present stay? Incidentally, apart from Salve, three other participants in the discussion- PM Bhargava of the Knowledge Commission, Pratap Bhanu Mehta of the Centre for development studies and Shiv Khera, the public speaker, bashed the HRD ministry for interfering with the IIMs' 'autonomy'. They also contended that the IIM directors should have defied the ministry's dictat.

I am not very sure. My understanding of 'autonomy' at IIMs is that they are independent of the university system and are free to grant their own diplomas. I doubt that 'autonomy' means independence from government. As for defying the ministry, that would conceivably mean violation of the Memorandum of Agreement between the ministry and the IIMs- a point highlighted in the ministry's communication.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

>> Critics say that the SC has only put OBC quotas on hold, so why should the others suffer? As I have argued earlier, the counter to this could be: why should only the OBC category suffer? >>

Let us see,

How about because only the OBC category is under litigation ?

There is no stay on the SC/ST quota, the Supreme Court has very clearly stated that in the interim order. It is unfair to hold them hostage. This is possibly a contempt of the court order to withhold SC/ST admissions,despite the explicit wording in the order.

It is not the OBCs quota alone who will suffer, the candidates selected due to the proportional rise in the general as well as SC/ST quota will also be on hold. In other words, everyone who hoped to take advantage of the impugned act will be affected.

T T Ram Mohan said...

Point taken - and I did quote Harish Salve on OBC reservation in jobs. As to whether the ministry's directive amounts to contempt of court, only the SC can pronounce on that. On TV, I did hear Salve say that he would raise the matter of the HRD ministry's directive in the SC.

-TTR