In response to Hoole‟s fresh application to the USAB, the present Vice Chancellor
responded on 26
July 2011, justifying the misuse of CL 17, claiming the University has acted reasonably in implementing the USAB order of February 2006, and is further
implementing the President‟s
directive by processing the fresh application made by Hoole. Thus all three chief executives of the University have acted on a gross misrepresentation of CL 17 as regards validity of advertisement without the caution of checking back and piously claimed to follow the rules.
The period of validity of the process is addressed in UGC Circular 699 of 1997, qualified by 732: A decision must be reached on an application within six months of the advertisement, extended maximum two times, three months at a time
, with UGC sanction. This takes into account the fact that a qualified candidate cannot and should not be kept waiting indefinitely. It is certainly unacceptable for the University to sit on an application without processing it and then demand a fresh one claiming expiry of the advertisement. More pertinently, the University ignored the salient fact that a cutoff date does not apply to a court (i.e. USAB) order.
The University of Jaffna has wantonly violated the rules without the UGC checking it.
Two important points stand out in the entire processing.
First, none of the four subject specialists in the recent selection board, the two senate
nominees and two UGC nominees, assessing Prof. Hoole’s application has a first degree in
CS is a new area and practically all senior academics in the field are from engineering or an allied field.
Indeed, Jaffna‟s first CS department head, Dr. S. Kanaganathan, was Prof. Hoole‟s PhD student.
And second, the interview arranged for Prof. Hoole on 30
January 2014 was a fraudulent exercise unworthy of a university of standing
. The Vice Chancellor assured the USAB in July
2011 that Prof. Hoole‟s application to the post advertised in January 2011 was being processed.
The fact of making him apply again was based on the inexcusably fictitious representation of CL 17 as pertaining to the expiry of an application, ignoring the USAB order.
Thus interviewing Prof. Hoole for the post 36 months after he applied was a parody of the rules alien to CL 17 and completely against the spirit of Circular 699 (732), besides an affront to th
directive. It was an exercise in fooling the applicant and members of the selection board.
As said earlier, there is a commonsense answer to this problem, recognized in the much abused CL 17, which says,
an applicant for the post of Senior Professor does not have to be evaluated according to the strict marking scheme for the post of Professor
.‟ It is meant to
allow persons who have earned international renown and distinction to be recruited without the red tape that has been abused in Prof. H
oole‟s case. Asking people who do not have a
corresponding level of attainment to sit in judgment on persons with undeniable international acclaim
, leads to the kind of unfortunate situation that brings down the system‟s reputation for
integrity and commonsense.