Madras University to amend rule for Ph.D guideship

‘Amendment will kick in once minutes of meeting are recorded’

The Academic Council of the University of Madras has adopted a resolution to amend the regulations for guideship of professors at the institution.

At the meeting on Saturday, V. Bhuvarahamurthy, head, Department of Medical Biochemistry, said that despite being appointed as a professor and receiving several Central government projects, he had not been given guideship, affecting his research work.

Mr. Bhuvarahamurthy’s contention was that he had several years of laboratory experience and had done projects abroad, yet he had not been given guideship. During earlier meetings where he brought up this issue, he was informed that he did not qualify for guideship as he did not have sufficient years of teaching experience.

One of the norms of the university is that professors, appointed to the institution, even if from an affiliated college, would be placed on probation for two years and cannot guide students at the university. They can, however, guide students in the institution they had served earlier during the probation period. At the council meeting, several professors felt the rule should be amended immediately.

The discussion initially revolved around how the lack of a Vice-Chancellor prevented resolution of issues. However, some professors felt it did not require a V-C but just collective agreement from university bodies such as syndicate, senate and the academic council.

Syndicate member G. Ravindran suggested that the university adopt the University Grants Commission’s 2016 amendment, to pave way for uniformity and research quality.

But several professors rejected it citing time delay and wanted the word ‘probation’ removed from the university’s rule book along with making rules pertaining to guideship.

A Syndicate member later said that the amendment would kick in once the minutes of the meeting are recorded. The amendment would help several professors who had guiding experience elsewhere but were denied guideship on grounds of appointment or probation.

R.R. Krishnamurthy, Dean of students, wanted a mechanism to address student issues. “We need a channelised mechanism to receive and process student grievances. We need to constitute a student body,” he said.

Several professors supported his demand stating that one of the UGC rules was to have a representation for students. Mr. Krishnamurthy said a student representative should be on the Board of Studies and in the Academic Council.

Chair of the proceedings Thangam Menon urged him to draft a proposal that she assured would be considered.