Earlier, solely the Board of Governors in an IIM had the powers to audit the functioning of the institute and take away or appoint administrators. The Union authorities had little say within the matter. This modified three months in the past when the Ministry of Education amended the IIM Act to claim extra authority over the enterprise faculties, together with giving itself powers to dissolve an IIM Board.

The three grounds for dissolution of an IIM Board are anticipated to be spelt out within the amended Rules (underneath the revised IIM Act) being finalised now, sources informed The Indian Express.

While the adjustments to the IIM Act in August clearly acknowledged that henceforth the President — in her capability because the Visitor of all IIMs — is empowered to dissolve the Board, with the Ministry appointing an interim Board as a replacement, the extent of this energy is now being outlined underneath the Rules of the amended IIM Act.

For occasion, whereas the modification to the IIM Act granted the President the authority to take away the director of an IIM, the Rules are anticipated to explicitly state that the institute’s Board is obligated to comply with the choice of the Visitor on this regard. There isn’t any room for back-and-forth on this matter.

The Rules are additionally anticipated, for the primary time, to firmly set up the academic {qualifications} of an IIM Director. It is known the Ministry is eager on the amended Rules to specify that any candidate or applicant for the place of an IIM Director ought to possess a first-class diploma at each the Bachelor’s and Master’s ranges, along with a Ph.D or an equal qualification. Currently, underneath the unamended Rules, an IIM Director’s educational credentials are described as “a distinguished academic with a PhD or equivalent”.

The provision on instructional {qualifications} comes within the wake of the IIM Rohtak case. Here, Dheeraj Sharma, the incumbent Director, had misrepresented his educational credentials throughout his preliminary appointment, which occurred earlier than the enactment of the IIM Act. Sharma had a second class Bachelor’s diploma, as an alternative of a firstclass, which was a compulsory eligibility requirement for the job as per the federal government’s commercial.

Subsequently, regardless of the MoE uncovering the fraud, it was unable to forestall Sharma’s re-appointment for a second time period final yr. This was as a result of, on the time of his re-appointment, the IIM Rohtak Board had absolutely the energy underneath the IIM Act to decide on the director and it had not stipulated a first-class Bachelor’s and Master’s diploma as a compulsory criterion.

The modification of the Rules underneath the IIM Act has been necessitated by current adjustments to the legislation. In a stunning transfer, the Ministry had launched an modification Bill for the IIM Act in the course of the monsoon session this yr, considerably diluting absolutely the autonomy granted to the 20 IIMs 5 years in the past with the enactment of the IIM Act in 2018. The adjustments have been made to entrust the administration accountability of the IIMs with the President, who would be the Visitor to the premier B-schools with powers to audit their functioning and take away or appoint administrators. Earlier, these powers have been vested within the IIM Board with the Union authorities having little say within the matter.

Now, the President, in her capability as Visitor, has the facility to nominate the Chairperson to the Board of Governors and the director of the institute and nominate a person to the search-cum-selection committee for the place of Director, giving the federal government a say in these essential appointments.

Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has justified the adjustments stating the federal government has no intention to remove the tutorial accountability from the institute however the invoice will solely guarantee its administration accountability.