Appointing Prof. Subir Verma as the director of the elite FORE School of Management has put a question mark over the violation of guidelines by AICTE, raising a clear doubt on transparency in academic governance.

The AICTE Gazette dated 1st March, 2019 prescribed that candidates seeking the post of a director in AICTE-approved institutions would require stringent educational and professional benchmarks so that the leadership goes to the best in class. From that perspective which has an added objective of maintaining academic standards, it also wishes for an atmosphere of excellence in research in higher learning institutions in the country.

Each director will have a doctoral degree, with first class or equivalent at Bachelor’s or Master’s level in the concerned field. Candidates must have supervised the successful completion of at least two PhD dissertations; published at least eight research articles in UGC or AICTE-approved journals; and, have at least 15 years’ experience in teaching, research, or industry, with at least three years as a professor-equivalent.

However, Prof. Verma’s appointment seems to be contrary to some established norms. According to the publicized information, he didn’t earn a first-class degree at the Bachelor’s level-an essential requirement as mentioned in the FORE School’s recruitment advertisement published in leading newspapers such as The Times of India, Mint, Economic Times, and Navbharat Times. While he holds a second-class Bachelor’s degree, candidates according to AICTE regulations need to have one first-class qualification at either the Bachelor’s or Master’s level.

Moreover, the research credentials of Prof. Verma do not fulfill the expectations of AICTE. Though the regulations mandate minimum eight research publications in the acknowledged journals, at the time of his appointment in 2023, Prof. Verma had just five such publications, with another paper published in 2024—a publication done after he was appointed.

This discrepancy has raised very serious questions: Why was he appointed by Prof. Verma, who had not met even the minimum requirements of AICTE? Were there no other candidates who were fully qualified or did FORE School of Management have some other reasons for selecting him?

The very process of appointment brings forth an even bigger issue with India’s higher education mechanism, where the set norms get established; they are sometimes ignored, and this might sully the virtue of academic leadership. There are AICTE guidelines, which exist to maintain safety in the selection of such key positions with highly qualified and research-oriented people, and this puts a heavy emphasis on the transparency of the recruitment process.

Such a step by the management of the FORE School, taking into consideration the above drawbacks, raises concerns regarding the compliance with the national regulatory frameworks under which the institution functions. Such steps could have implications for the institutions’ accreditation and reputation, should such violations of AICTE norms be proven.

The other type of legitimization of questions pertaining to this case would be the lack of clarification from the administration of FORE School concerning why such a choice was made with regard to Prof. Verma over possibly more qualified candidates. The matter would raise the question of whether the appointment process would draw attention from AICTE and other regulatory bodies, pointing to the direction of similarity in other appointments around institutions, leading to a massive reevaluation of recruitment policies in the academic sector.

As this controversy continues, it is hard to say whether there would be a cost to the institution or if this would serve as an impetus for reforms in how academic appointments are made in the Indian higher education space.