Don't increase IIM director's retirement age without DoPT nod: Law to HRD Ministry

THE LAW Ministry has objected to the HRD Ministry’s attempt to increase the retirement age of all IIM directors, from 65 years to 70, without consulting the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), The Indian Express has learnt.

The disapproval is part of the Law Ministry’s comments on the draft rules under the IIM Act that were shared by the HRD Ministry this month for legal vetting. The change in retirement age was introduced on the recommendation of an eight-member panel, headed by IIM-Sirmaur chairperson and industrialist Ajay Shriram, that was tasked by the government to provide suggestions for making IIM Rules.

The Law Ministry is learnt to have also opposed the provision in the rules that empowers the HRD Ministry to have the last word “in case of any doubt on any of the rules”. This clause, it feels, goes against the spirit of the IIM Act as it gives the government unlimited power and control.

The IIM Act, which came into effect on January 31, grants statutory powers to all 20 IIMs, including for appointment of directors, chairpersons and board members. Earlier, the director was appointed by the board, but with prior approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) headed by the Prime Minister. With this law, the institutes can also award degrees, instead of diplomas, for their post-graduate programmes.

The rules, under the Act, define finer details such as the procedure for appointment and removal of an institute’s chairperson and director, their powers, and the functions of the Board of Governors.

The draft rules have undergone multiple changes based on the feedback from the IIMs and the Prime Minister’s Office. The final document was expected to be notified soon after the HRD Ministry sent it for legal vetting last week. However, the comments received this week have flagged the need for several changes in the rules as some of its provisions seem to be operating outside the scope of the IIM Act. According to sources, the Law Ministry’s suggestions are being currently considered by the HRD Ministry.

The Law Ministry has also pointed out that the clause on appointment of an acting chairperson in case of “sudden vacancy” (resignation or death of the incumbent) may have to be removed since there is no provision for an acting chairperson in the IIM Act.

In addition to this, the Law Ministry seems unhappy with the special emphasis laid on the powers of the chairperson in the rules. This, sources said, goes against the Act, which empowers the institute’s Board of Governors as a whole and not just the chairperson.
News Source (Indian Express)