DISCUSSION 49 & be nominated by the Vice-Ghancellor. A teacher nominee of the Vice-Ghancellor shall be the Chairman of the Council. ^The Student Council shall communicate its views to the Academic Council and the Executive Council on all issues concerning the students, but the Chairman reserves the right to decide whether an issue, in addition^ the ones listed, concerns the students or not. Such a body, o.bvi6usly, cannot be a true spokesman of the students. On the contrary, it serves as a^ rival to the true spokesman, the present students' Union. The Student CouftcW plays a doubly negative role. On the one hand, it disallows any effective consultation of students, because of its non-representative character, let alone their effective participation in decision-making; on the other, it serves as a threat to the students' organisation. The Student Council acquires relevance when viewed in the light of the proposed constitution of the students' union which completely devitalises it. Again, the representation of the students and the teachers on the Court is more of an illusion than a reality, because, the Court, henceforth, will serve as a debating club, and not as an effective authority of the university. Therefore, despite the Committee's enthusiasm for participation of the constituents of the university in its affairs, the teachers get some participation only in the Academic Council. On the Executive Council too, only one representative is to be elected by the Academic Council from amongst its teacher members. In the ultimate analysis, the structure proposed by the Gajendragadkar Committee further widens the social and educational gap, which only reflects class bias of the State. It is this bias again that reveals itself, though indirectly, in the structure of university administration as proposed by the Gajendragadkar Committee, or in the proposals for reorganisation of higher education as envisaged by Naik. KARTAR SINGH SANGWAN 1 Report of the Committee on Governance of Universities and Colleges, Part 1, P 5. « Ibid., P 5. s J P Naik, Higher Education In India : Some Suggestions for Reorganisation, Section II, para 4. 4 Ibid.., Section II, Para 5. 5 Ibid., Section IV, Para 8 c. « J P Naik, Ibid., Section IV, para 9. 7 Report of the Committee on the Governance of Universities and Colleges, Vol I, P 7. 8 76iW..P73. 9 76tW..VolI, P6. 10 The Delhi University Amendment Act, 1972. 11 "An Incomplete Document by the Academician", The Hindustan Times, September 18, 1972. 12 Report of the Committee on the Governance of Universities and Colleges, Vol I, P 2. " Ibid., Vol I, P 16. 14 Ibid.. Vol I, P'82, (The provision in the Himachal Pradesh University Act is endorsed), 16 Ibid., P 26. l6 7^W.,P36. 17 Ibid., P 16. 18 7W., P H. i9 7W.,P21.