|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 6 March 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Ombudsman clarifies The following letter was sent to us by Justice R. B. Ranaraja, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman), clarifying issues arising out of a letter titled 'Peradeniya shame - a reply', written by the Secretary/Council, University of Peradeniya and published on this page on Feb. 7. I hold the Post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Ombudsman). Mr. S. Ratnajeewan H. Hoole by letter dated 26th September, 2003 complained to me, inter alia, that the Council of the University of Peradeniya, in breach of the provisions of the Universities Act and the rules framed thereunder, forwarded three names to the University Grants Commission to be recommended for appointment by the President to the Post of Vice Chancellor. He submitted that the Council had nominated the incumbent Vice Chancellor, whilst two others who were eminently qualified had also applied for the post in response to the Advertisement calling for applications. However, the Council had wrongfully rejected the two applications and instead accepted applications from two members of the Council, after the closing date for the receipt of applications. The Council had then forwarded the names of the incumbent Vice Chancellor and the latter two to the University Grants Commission. He alleged that one of the reasons given by the Council for rejecting the application of an original candidate in response to the advertisement, was that he was a non-national. The Acting Vice Chancellor Dr. A. J. Pitigala Arachchi filed his response on 13th October, 2003. He had chaired the relevant Council meeting. In para 1.2 of his response he stated: "The nomination and the two applications were considered carefully. The Council decided that the two applicants were unsuitable for appointment as Vice Chancellor as they did not have the combination of high academic achievement and proven Leadership/administrative experience. The citizenship status of an applicant was not a reason for rejection as alleged'. The Chairman of the University Grants Commission filed his response on 13.10.2003. Mr. Hoole filed his counter response on 10th November 2003. The inquiry into the complaint was held on 20.11.2003. Present at the inquiry were, Mr. Hoole, Dr. A. J. Pitigala Arachchi, as the representative of the Vice Chancellor, and three others representing the University Grants Commission. At the inquiry, along with several other documents, Mr. Hoole produced a copy of Memo No. UGC 637/11.2 with the title "Nomination of the Vice Chancellor, University of Peradeniya" dated 3.7.2003. Reference is made to the meeting of 3.7.2003 in the UGC Chairman's response at which the recommendation of the University Council as embodied in the memo was considered by the UGC. Neither did Dr. Pitigala Arachchi nor the representatives of the UGC challenge the authenticity of the copy of the memo produced by Mr. Hoole. It is stated therein that "the Commission noted the Council having considered the two applications and the single nomination, decided not to recommend the two applicants due to the following reasons: (1) Prof. P. Gopalakrishnakone was not a Sri Lankan National". It is on this document that I based my finding and not on a statement made by Mr. Hoole. In the letter of the Secretary/Council referred to, published in your newspaper, it is stated; "In fact, an unambiguous written submission made to the Ombudsman that the nationality was not a reason for rejection of an applicant has been ignored; it is unfortunate that the Ombudsman has based his judgment on this wrong premise without any evidence other than Prof. Hoole's allegations. In one instance the Ombudsman states that "The application of one of the original applicant (sic) was rejected on the ground of non-nationality which is totally untrue. Further the laborious sermonising on 'discretion and statutory power conferred upon trust for public interest' etc. was redundant as the submission made on behalf of the Council clearly stated that the decisions were made on this basis. This has cast doubts about the impartiality of the Ombudsman's judgment". The Ombudsman has a duty to consider all the evidence produced by the parties at the inquiry. The mere fact that Dr. Pitigala Arachchi had stated that "The citizenship status of an applicant was not a reason for rejection as alleged" in his response, does not cast any obligation on the Ombudsman to blindly accept what is stated by him as the truth, specially when that statement is contradicted by the memo dated 3.7.2003 of the UGC. Dr. Pitigala Arachchi made no effort, when there has duty cast on him, to explain this obvious contradiction in the two statements. In the circumstances, I chose to accept what was stated in the memo rather than accept Dr. Pitigala Arachchi's ipse dixit. I am at a loss to understand how such a body as a university council cannot fathom the simple fact that "judging" means searching for the truth and ignoring the untruth. This is what "impartiality" is all about. The UGC acting on my comments on the unfair practices adopted by the Council in selecting candidates for the Post of Vice Chancellor, has decided to amend the existing Circulars with regard to the procedure to be followed when making recommendations to the Commission in the future, in order to rectify the weaknesses in the existing selection procedure. To wilfully make a false statement to the Ombudsman for the purposes of an investigation and by words intended to be read, publish any statement which is calculated to bring the Ombudsman into disrepute are offences punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding five thousand rupees or to both such imprisonment and such fine, after trial by the High Court, without a jury, in terms of Section 20 of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Act, No. 17 of 1981. (This correspondence is now closed - Editor) |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
