CHAPTER III

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

3.1 REPORTS OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

3.2 RESEARCH STUDIES

3.3 RESEARCH PAPAERS AND ARTICLES

INTRODUCTION
Institutions of higher education are facing the problem of
finances. The expenditure at every level and in every aspect is
increasing while the sources and amount of income are
remaining at a low level. Finances have a direct and telling
effect on the standard of education and the academic
achievements of students.
In this chapter, studies on financing of higher education
and studies on quality of higher education are reviewed.
Several studies have been taken up in the field of education
but, studies on financial management in the higher education,
are much less in number. According to V. Natarajan (Financial
Management Techniques for Universities - 1995) ‘Studies on
financial management of universities are essential in improving
the effectiveness of funds utilization and in formulating
educational policies and guidelines for the efficient governance
of universities’.
A brief survey of the selected studies and their salient
findings are made in the ensuring paragraphs under three sub­
heading to serve as a background for the present study.

3.1 REPORTS OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES

To improve the quality of education and mitigate the
administrative problems of the institutions of higher education,
the Government appointed various commissions and
committees after independence. These commissions and
committees examined the problem for which they were

73
appointed and recommended to improve the standard of higher
education and to plan for future policy. The main commissions
& committees and their recommendations are -
1. University Education Commission (Dr. S.
Radhakrishnan Commission) -1948
The Government of India was appointed the University
Education Commission under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.
Radhakrishnan, the late President of India on Nov. 4 1948. The
Commission was to deal with ail the aspects of higher
education. It submitted the report on 25th Aug. 1949. Main
recommendations are -
1. All universities should be constituted as autonomous bodies
in order to enable them to meet the new responsibilities.
2. The Central Government should be responsible for finance,
co-ordination of facilities, adoption of a national policy
ensuring minimum standard of efficiency and liaison
between universities and research laboratories.
3. The universities should be teaching institutions rather than
affiliating types.
4. A Grants Allocation Committee should be constituted and
The University Grants Commission should be set-up.
The report is surely a most valuable document and
provided a direction for improvement of higher education. The
Government accepted most of the recommendations.

74
2. The Three Year Degree Course Estimate Committee -
1956
A Three Year Degree Course Committee was set-up on
1st Oct. 1956, under the Chairmanship of Shri C.D. Deshmukh,
the then Chairman of UGC. The terms of reference was to
make recommendations regarding the best manner in which
Three Year Degree Course could be introduced in the affiliated
colleges and universities and the related matters. Major
recommendations are -
1. During the Second Five Year Plan period the Three Year
Degree Course be introduced in as many universities as
possible.
2. The unit of reorganization should be a university and not a
college.
3. Steps should be taken to improve the quality of collegiate
education in general. For this purpose, from the grants
available, it is necessary to revise syllabuses, introduce
general education courses, reduce over crowding in
colleges, improve the teacher-pupil ratio, strengthen
laboratories and replenish libraries.
3. Committee on Standards of University Education -1961
In order to undertake a systematic and objective
investigation of problems relating to the standards of higher
education in Indian Universities the UGC appointed a
committee in Aug. 1961, under the Chairmanship of Prof. N. K.
Sidhanta, Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University. After the death of
Prof. Sidhanta, Shri S. Govindrajalu was ; a

75
Chairman. The terms of reference was to examine various
aspects of the problem of improving quality and raising
standards in the field of higher education.
The Committee recommended about each aspect of
higher education. The main recommendations are -
1. Universities should lay much emphasis on development
oriented courses.
2. There should be a reasonably uniform system of granting
affiliation to colleges all over the country. The norms and
conditions formulated by UGC should be strictly adhered to.
3. Universities should have a high degree of autonomy.
4. Present outlay on higher education and the cost per student
should be sufficiently increased.

4. Committee on Model Act -1961

Ministry of Education appointed a Committee on Model
Act, under the Chairmanship of Dr. D. S. Kothari, the then
Chairman of UGC, in Dec. 1961. The Committee was asked to
consider broadly the organizational structure of universities and
to prepare the outline of a model act suited to their role and
functions in the present context.
After careful consideration, the Committee felt that it
might not even be possible to prepare a Model Act. Constitution
of a university should be formulated in sufficiently general
terms. University should lay down the structure & organization
in broad terms and relevant details may be prescribed by

76
statutes and ordinances. The Kothari Commission (1964-66)
has endorsed many of the recommendations.
6. The Committee on Colleges - 1962
In Sept. 1962, a small committee was constituted to
advise the UGC on the general policy to be followed in
developing colleges, to make suggestions regarding the proper
and effective utilization of the limited resources available and
ways and means of maintaining and improving the standards of
collegiate education. In April 1964, the Committee was
reconstituted. The Chairman of the Committee was Dr. G. S.
Mahajani. Major recommendations are -
1. The period of schooling should extend for at least twelve
years to ensure a minimum entrance age of 18 to the first
degree course.
2. The undergraduate course should be so designed that it
provide preparation for developing basic skills and
knowledge necessary for employment in various professions
and industries, transmission of our cultural and traditional
heritage and a common standard of enlightened citizenship.
3. To deal with the problem of grant-in-aid, Collegiate Grants
Committee be set up by the State Government.
4. A few selected colleges should given autonomous state.
6. The Committee of Members of Parliament on Higher
Education -1963
The Ministry of Education set up a committee of certain
members of Parliament in 1963, under the Chairmanship of
Shri P. N. Sapru. The terms of reference was to examine the

77
provisions of the constitutions regarding the responsibility of the
Central Government in the field of higher education. Major
recommendations are -
1. University education should be transferred from the State
List to the Concurrent List and the conditions of grant should
be liberalized.
2. Professional education including Medical, Agriculture,
Engineering and Law should also come within the purview of
the university.
3. The number of scholarships for university and higher
education and research should be considerably increased.
4. The universities should pursue a common policy in regard to
admissions.
7. Education Commission (Kothari Commission) -1964-66
Another significant event in the development of higher
education is the appointment of the Education Commission,
popularly known as Kothari Commission on July16, 1964. The
terms of reference of the Commission were to advise the
government on the national pattern of education and on the
general principles and policies for the development of education
at all stages and in all aspects. The Commission submitted the
report in June 1966. In respect of higher education, the
commission recommended about each aspect such as
objectives, governance of universities, planning and
administration, finance, expansion of facilities, teachers,
enrolment, etc. The most important one, about the financing of
higher education is that, the State Governments should place

78
adequate financial resources at the disposal of the universities
and simplify the rules and procedures for operating them. It also
recommended the constitution of Academic Planning Board in
each university.
8. Education Policy - 1968
Based on the report of the Education Commission -
1964-66, the Government of India issued a National Policy of
Education 1968. The policy aimed to promote national
progress, a sense of common citizenship & culture and to
strengthen national integration. It laid stress on the need for a
radical reconstruction of the education system to improve its
quality and gave much greater attention to science and
technology, the cultivation of moral values and a closer relation
between education and the life of the people’ NPE 1986. In May
1979, the NPE 1968 was reviewed and reoriented.
After adopting the policy educational facilities expanded
largely. The considerable factors are the acceptance of
common structure of education through out the country,
introduction of 10+2+3 pattern, restructuring of various courses,
setting up centres of Advanced Studies, etc.. However, the
problem relating to access, quality, utility and financial outlay
remained unsolved.
9. Committee on Governance of Universities -1969
In June 1969, UGC appointed two committees - one
under the Chairmanship of Dr. P. B. Gajendragadkar, former
Chief Jusice of India and the then Vice-Chancellor of the
University of Bombay and second under the Chairmanship of

79
Rev. P. T. Chandi, the then Vice-Chancellor of Gorakhapur
University. Due to resignation of Rev. Chandi, later, both the
committees amalgamated under the Chairmanship of Dr.
Gajendragadkar, hence, the Committee is known as
Gajendragadkar Committee.
It submitted the report in June 1970. The
recommendations are so wide and appropriate even in the
present situation. In respect of finances, it recommended that
universities should have adequate financial support from the
state government and financial autonomy. In respect of
administration of universities, it opined not to interfere with the
administration of the university, both academic and non-
academic matters.
10.National Policy on Education -1986
In respect of higher education, it is mentioned in the
policy that, it contributes for national development through
dissemination of specialized knowledge and skills. In the
context of the unprecedented explosion of knowledge, it has to
become dynamic as never before. Urgent steps will be taken to
protect the system from degradation. Courses and programmes
will be redesigned to meet the demands of specialization better.
Provision will be made for minimum facilities. Major efforts will
be directed towards the transformation of teaching methods,
development of curricula and material research. Research in
the universities will be provided enhanced support and steps
will be taken to ensure its high quality. To fulfill the need for the

80
synthesis of knowledge, inter-disciplinary research will be
encouraged.
11. Committee for Review of National Policy on Education
1986 (Acharya Rammurti Committee) -1990
On 7th May, 1990, the Government of India set up a
committee to review NPE 1986, under the Chairmanship of
Acharya Rammurti. After a thorough review the Committee
submitted its report in Dec. 1990 titling Towards an
Enlightened and Humane Society’.
In respect of higher education Committee recommended
as -
1. Government should strongly discourage establishment of
non-standard or sub-standard colleges and universities.
2. The universities should be relieved of the responsibility of
holding examinations at the bachelors’ level so that, they can
concentrate on post-graduate, doctoral and post-doctoral
studies.
3. Whole process of curriculum development and designing of
courses can not be decentralized.
4. Universities should involve themselves in development of
issues in the concerned regions.
12. Gnanam Committee on Educational Management
The UGC constituted a committee under the
Chairmanship of A. Gnanam. The report of this Committee titled
Towards New Educational Management’ published by UGC in
1990. The Committee analysed comprehensively all current
problems of management including financial management and

81
gave practical solutions and guidelines. Major
recommendations are -
1. UGC should establish 4 or 5 regional offices for effective
implementation and monitoring of the programmes and its
funding to universities and colleges.
2. Appropriate guidelines be worked out by each university for
'Decentralized Financial Management’.
3. Universities should appoint their own finance officer, which
basically be academics conversant with financial
management.
4. A start may be made to create endowment funds in the
universities so that ultimately they become self-sufficient.
13.The Central Advisory Board of Education Committee on
NPE 1986-1991
The Ministry of HRD set up a committee of Central
Advisory Board of Education (CABE), on 31st July 1991, under
the Chairmanship of Janardan Reddy. The term was to review
the implementation of the various parameters of NPE 1986
taking into account the report of the Rammurti Committee and
other relevant developments since the formulation of the Policy.
The Committee submitted its report in Jan. 1992. Main
recommendations are -
1. Efforts should be made to secure involvement of teachers
and students in extension work.
2. The scheme of Curriculum Development Centres should be
continued.

82
3. The proliferation of colleges without adequate facilities can
be curbed to a large extent if the universities exercise
rigorous control and insist on creation of necessary
infrastructure and educational facilities before granting
affiliation and if the State Government respects the decision
of the universities in these matters.
The NPE 1986 was modified in May 1992 as per the
recommendations of the Committee and Programme of
Action (POA) also revised in Aug. 1992.
14. Justice Dr. K. Punnayya Committee -1992
On Nov. 11, 1992, UGC set up a high powered committee
under the Chairmanship of Dr. K. Punnayya, mainly to examine
the present financial situation in regard to Central Universities.
The recommendations of the Committee are also applicable to
all universities. Main recommendations are -
1. Any additional resources generated by a university may be
kept in a separate fund to be utilized for furtherance of the
objectives.
2. UGC may provide a matching grant as an incentive to
universities generating additional resources.
3. The Government must continue to accept the major
responsibility for funding the essential maintenance and
development requirements of universities.
4. The unit cost system of calculation of eligibility for grants
should be applied.

83
5. Development grants should be linked to an academic audit
system and performance indicators to be developed by each
university.
15.Ambani - Birla Committee (Government of India - 2000)
Government of India appointed a committee headed by
two noted private sector industrialists - Mukesh Ambani and
Kumarmangalam Birla, to suggest the needed reforms in
education sector along with other sectors. The Committee
noted the critical importance of the role of the State in
development of education, including higher education in several
developed countries of the world. The main suggestion of the
Committee is that the Government of India should leave higher
education to the private sector. ‘User pay’ principle be strictly
enforced in higher education, supported by loans and grants to
economically and socially backward sections of the society.
16. National Knowledge Commission - 2006
On Jan. 12, 2007, Sam Pitroda submitted the report on
higher education - The Report to the Nation 2006, on behalf of
the Notional Knowledge Commission appointed by the Prime
Minister. The report is based on ground realities relating to
economic and social forces operating in the country. The main
recommendations are -
1. Increase the financial support from the government for
higher education.
2. Implement course credit system, decentralized examination
system with focus on internal assessment, periodic revision

84
 and restructuring of curricula and criteria based resource
allocation.
3. Follow the principle ‘those who can, must pay and those who
can not, must not be denied admissions but provide
scholarships’.
4. Grant autonomy for academic self-governance to individual
colleges with proven record of academic excellence or to a
cluster of colleges within a geographical area and
remoulding some of the colleges as community colleges are
all visionary.
5. Set State Board of Under-graduate Education that would set
curricula, provide quality benchmark and conduct
examinations.
(Reference-Pawan Agarwal Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XLII
No 7)

3.2 RESEARCH STUDIES

There are number of studies regarding financing and
financial management of higher education. Some of them which
are closely related to the research study are enumerated below.
M. R. Kurup and L. R. Thatte pointed out that higher
education needs more funds hence, if government funds are
not available, non-government sources should be tapped. Fees
from students, the main source under non-government
category, have decreased from 32% in 1950-51 to 15% in
1980-81.

85
 Sanjay Shankar points out that almost all universities in
the country have been in financial crisis of varying degrees and
this trend will continue unabated. Growth in student population,
addition of new departments & courses increased the
requirements of universities at a much faster rate than the rate
of increase in resources.
Isreney S. M. pointed out that the educational institutions
are solely depending on grants from government for payment of
salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff. He observed that
the fee for higher education besides being kept uniformly at low
level, left unaltered for several years. He further states that 80
to 95% students are enjoying free ships, etc.
Balachander K. K. pointed out that the State Universities
are now reeling under severe financial strains. Because of
financial burden, these universities are forced to cut down their
expenditure drastically on many on-going programmes of high
academic value, as well as on libraries, laboratories and related
infrastructural facilities. He states that the grant-in-aid system
should help to develop the total aspects of university education
and the university in turn, should fulfill its obligation to society
and the university to improve the educational opportunities.
Stable income and periodic check on expenditure will
encourage the university to create dynamism.
Ansari M. M. pointed that the responsibility of financing
education has become a burden for the Centre and the State

86
Governments. He also pointed out that per student cost of
higher education by discipline reveals considerable variation
across the universities, even of similar type or nature. It means
there is no effective planning in distribution and management of
funds. He suggests that 100% financial support by UGC on
Plan Expenditure will help to maintain a moderately uniform
level of facilities and also an adequate standard of higher
education.
Narsingh states that though, the Centre and State
Governments are making huge investments and incurring high
amount of expenditure on university education it is not
proportionate with the raise in price index and establishment of
new university institutions.
Ghosh D. K. observed that the investment in higher
education is not merely to create intellect and better culture, but
to meet new challenges and to lead the society to a better
quality of life. Developed countries are enjoying better status
and rank in life because they invested large sums of money into
their higher education.
Bajaj K. K. points out that the share of government
expenditure on education is not adequate. Government’s
contribution is less than 3% of GNP; it should be 6-7%
according to recommendation of the Kothari Commission. He
also pointed out that, in order to recover the cost upward
revision in tution, library, laboratory, sports fees and other
service charges is essential. Resource generation has to be

87
institutionalized in order to sustain the system of higher
education.
Faruqui and Quershi stated that proliferation of
universities and colleges has been haphazard and without
thoughtful planning with the result that many of the universities
and colleges lack essential infrastructure facilities.
Y. S. Kiranmayi discussed in detail the organizational
structure for financial management, weakness of financial
management in universities and pattern of income and
expenditure.
M. M. Sharma studied comprehensively significant
aspects of ‘Financial Management of Universities in India’
based on options collected through a questionnaire. He evolved
normative pattern of expenditure and a model criteria for fixing
the grant. His main suggestions are - the universities should be
given financial autonomy, H.O.D. should also be delegated with
adequate financial powers and universities should prepare
Account Manual.
M. S. Jeremiah pointed out that owing to resources
crunch, although there has been considerable expansion
quantitatively, qualitatively higher education has suffered
immensely. Due to lack of resources standards are falling and
institutions are weakened.
Other studies on university finances -
1. D. Jha - ‘A Study of the Finances of the Patna University’
1974.

88
2. E. T. Mathew - ‘A Study of Kerala University Finances’
1974.
3. K. M. Mukerji - ‘A Study of Calcutta University Finances’
1974.
4. M. S. Nigam - ‘A Study of the Finances of the University of
Rajasthan’1974.
5. D. M. Nanjundappa - ‘A Study of University Finances’
(Special Reference to Karnataka University) 1975.
6. G. Subrahmanyam - ‘University Finances - A Case Study of
Andhra University’ 1982.
7. V. Natarajan - ‘Financial Management Techniques for
Universities (Case Study of Pondichery University) 1995.

3.3 RESEARCH PAPERS AND ARTICLES

Many research articles and papers are published on the
topic in reputed journal such as University News, Economics
and Political Weekly etc. Some of them are closely related to
the topic under study so, they are enumerated very briefly in the
following lines.
L. C. Singh stated that the Indian higher education has to
become cost effective of high quality, more self-supporting and
relevant to the country’s need. He pointed that to improve the
financial status of higher education, by raising resources so that
their dependence on State and Centre is reduced self-financing
higher educational institutions should establish.
A. V. Patankar explained in detail need to reform for
quality, quality assessment approaches and problem in reforms

89
for quality. He has given a package of reforms which includes -
state funds should not be spent on higher education. Instead,
those who derive benefits from the system must pay for them
on quid pro quo basis and that those who receive money shall
be directly accountable to those who give.
CVS Ranga Sai expressed two quality systems - a)
systems without additional capital outlays like staff academy,
alumni association, feedback from students, self study centres,
student development and skill enhancement programmes etc.,
b) systems with moderate budget like counseling facilities,
medical facilities, insurance schemes, welfare centre,
consultation activities, etc. which can be financed by alumni or
any sponsor.
Vandan Mohad and Veena Mohad are of the opinion that
upgradation of higher education can not be considered without
the systematic efforts towards improving the attendance of
students. They also suggested modification of syllabi and
examination system and effective teaching for better academic
achievements.
L. Gogoi stated that resource generation is an alternative
strategy against Government funding and a way out of relieving
financial crunch. He enumerated some sources of funds and at
the same time emphasized on the effective management of
funds. He pointed out that competency and ethical aspect of the
management hierarchy is the bedrock of effective generation
and management of funds for the institutions.
 M. R. Kurup stated that ‘employability’ of the course of
study is slowly replacing ‘intellectual development’ as a key
factor in higher education. He further remarked that government
should assess the institutional performance and potential to
decide the quantum of grant. The university and the college
should be academically autonomous with built-in accountability.
Government should make a clear statement on higher
education finance that educational institution comes out of any
uncertainty.
A. N. Maheshwari is of the opinion that the higher
education, since its inception has been following the same road
and is now at cross-roads. Universities should design the
students according to the requirements of employment sector.
Students are the customers of the education and it is necessary
to follow the principle of ‘customer satisfaction’. He suggested
some ways and methods to serve the purpose. State funding is
shrinkage to alarmingly low level. So, universities should
generate resources both physical and financial by offering
innovative attractive courses and by taking up consultancy
assignments.
Nageshwar Rao and R. P. Das suggested some
measures for raising finance such as starting and promoting
self-financing courses, rationalizing fee structure, support from
alumni and utilizing the faculty to handle the projects of social
welfare and industrial problems. He also enumerated few points
regarding restructuring of university administration such as zero

91
base budgeting, creating work culture, spending attached to the
utility etc.
Ashok Pankaj opined that higher education entered a very
critical phase of turmoil and transition, because of casual and
poor policymaking, rampant academic and non-academic
indiscipline, mismanagement of colleges and universities and
unprecedented financial crisis. 95% of the budget of universities
is spent on current expenditure mostly salary and pension bills
which led to drastic curtailment of expenditure on infrastructural
facilities. Self-financing and privatization are suggested as
solution. However, both are feasible only for professional
courses. He suggested ways of meeting financial challenges
and steps for general and administrative reforms.
K. K. Bajaj is of the opinion that now there is a growing
environment of questioning criticism, financial stringency and
acceptance of the principle of accountability all over besides a
serious clamour for repositioning of resources for optimal
efficiency. Upgradation of skills of the students through
vocationalisation is the need of the hour. Pooled teaching,
industry interaction, computer courses, sharing of library and
laboratory facilities and resources can help to come out from
resource crunch. The colleges have to generate some funds for
their respectable survival.
Aruna Goel enumerated some important activities being
financed by UGC. She is of the opinion that UGC should control
the finance through - internal financial control, strict criteria
based on merit in allocating programmes, publication of yearly

92
progress, ensuring efficiency & transparency, fixing standards
while allocating resources, sound management & MIS etc..
Bharat Sant suggested that SWOT analysis can be done
for a Higher Education System. He stressed mainly on
weaknesses in the system and opined that we need urgently an
action oriented programme to shed our weaknesses. He
pointed out weaknesses in quality of teachers, teaching and
non-teaching staff as well as communication barriers. If
economic reforms are a necessity, educational reforms are
greater necessity.
Zeenat Shafi said that in the garb of quantitative success
of higher education there is qualitative failure. She identified
major issues affecting the system which are - low standard,
lack of relevance, negligence towards access and equity and
financial constraints. She suggested the strategy of improving
relevance, improving quality and funding options.
A M Shah is of the opinion that it is a fact that standards
of higher education and research in universities in India have
declined during the last few decades is widely recognized, but
the fear that there are no signs of improvement is growing.
Solutions have been sought mainly at higher levels of funding.
Hardly any attempt is made to address the problems arising out
of the long established basic structure of the university system
and to deal with the changing ground realities. He thoroughly
discussed the reasons and factors responsible for declining the
quality and suggested few measures for structural reform.

93
 Jandhyala B G Tilak reviewed some of the in favour of
and counter arguments against public subsidies in education in
India. He focused on the controversies around subsidies in
higher education. He reviewed the recent trends in public
expenditures on education, the rates of subsidy and cost
recovery with necessary statistics. Some important issues are
also briefly discussed. It has been shown that the level of
subsidies in education in India is not particularly high nor is the
rate of cost recovery particularly low in comparison with other
developed & developing countries. Some of the specific
subsidies are fairly progressively distributed.
S Roy Choudhury, Shobhit Mahajan opinioned that the
state is spending substantially on college education
programmes for a privileged few without their having to pay
anything for it. There has to be a political consensus to make
higher education self-financed and target the scarce resources
towards primary & secondary education.
M Anandkrishnan criticized the Report to the Nation 2006
produced by the National Knowledge Commission, which deals
with most of the concerns on Indian higher education system.
The article highlights all pervasive interference factors as the
fundamental systemic factor in eroding the functional
capabilities of our higher education system and suggests ways
to deal with them. It also draws attention to several new tends
that are missing in the report. He concluded that the report of
NKC has prescribed approaches to revamp the higher
education system. It has dealt with issues relating to expansion,

94
curricular concerns, governance and financing. What is needed
at this stage is to reflect on the causes for the disappointing
results on these and similar suggestions by several eminent
commissions and committees during the past decades, if this
report may not see the same fate.
Pulapre Balakrishnan explained that the decline and fall
of the publicly funded higher education system in India has its
origins in the fact that there has been a steady expansion of
institutions without any concern for quality of the faculty. Unless
such issues are addressed, merely increasing the number of
seats will prove counter productive.
Praveen Jha stated that there is a weakening of progress
in the education sector on several key dimensions during the
reforms period. An analysis of budgetary provisions during the
last decade in education and certain significant institutional
changes reveals a number of negative developments. The
weakening of progress and the negative developments are
organically connected with the neoliberal policies pursued by
successive governments. He has proved it with the help of
financial data and graphs.
Pawan Agarwal explained that liberalization of higher
education services in India should be viewed as a strategy to
promote the quality of its own higher education system.
Unfortunately, over the last two decades, unplanned and
chaotic growth of higher education has resulted in deterioration
of overall standards lowering the value of an academic degree.

95
Restoring the credibility of higher education is therefore utmost
important.
Surendra Singh enumerated the major challenges before
management of universities today and kinds of responses
required to face these challenges in an effective manner.
Increase in political interference and decrease in autonomy,
change in attitudes & values, non-availability of even minimum
required resources etc. are the major challenges.
Sayed Afzal Peerzade assessed the current state of
higher education and finance of government to the sector with
the help of current statistics. He suggested that the government
should not withdraw itself from funding higher education, it may
allow some space for private participation in professional higher
education but it should take upon itself the task of providing
conventional higher education, a system of ‘differential fee
structure’ should be introduced, corporate houses should adopt
universities or university departments, universities and
research institutes should develop a corpus fund and students
& employees should contribute for it. Lethargic attitude on the
part of government would result in devastating consequence.
After assessing the international and Indian scenario of
higher education, P K Dutta put forward the challenges and
opportunities ahead. He suggested some ground rules to
achieve the agenda such as revamping curricula, sharing
academic resources, enhancement of appropriate facilities,
academic audit & peer review, careful examination of fee
structure etc.

96
 A S Shiralashetti concluded from his research that higher
education is very essential for the proper use of human & other
natural resources for the development and growth of economy.
However, it is not possible to utilize the abundant natural and
human resources properly due to lack of basic infrastructure
and low investment in higher education, which is also
inconsistent in growth. So, there is urgent need to hike the
investment in higher education.
V C Kulandaiswamy has discussed the following points
with appropriate statistics and tables - higher education fully
resisted all attempts for reform, present structure is outdated
and anachronistic, it takes place in the ill equipped,
understaffed, tiny, affiliated colleges, paucity of funds & lack of
autonomy etc. It is necessary to welcome and encourage
private participation on a selective basis, have to add
dynamism, flexibility, competitiveness & strength, internal
evaluation system, academic audit etc.
Promod Mathur and J K Pattanayak enumerated funding
of higher educational institutions, current accounting and
reporting practices in India & in developed countries and
conceptual framework and concluded that significance of it is
felt worldwide but still there is no fixed guidelines for reporting
practices.
In conclusion, it can be said that large number of studies
are available on financing and financial management of
universities. These studies mainly elaborate UGC or

97
Government funding pattern and the relevant issues. There are
few studies, which deal with quality or standard of university
education. No full-fledged academic research study on finances
of higher education and achievements of students has been
carried out. This interdisciplinary research study bridges the
long felt gap in the field of research.

References:
1. Kurup M R & Thatte L R - ‘Pricing Higher Education’,
Some Papers on Higher Education, Amar Prakashan, New
Delhi, 1991.
2. Sanjay Shankar - ‘Financial Administration in Universities -
Need for a Pragmatic Approach’, Some Papers on Higher
Education by Maheep Singh, Amar Prakashan, New Delhi,
1991.
3. Isreney S M - ‘Pricing Higher Education - A Theoretical
Approach’, Some Papers on Higher Education by Maheep
Singh, Amar Prakashan, New Delhi, 1991.
5. Ansari MM- ‘Strategy of Funding Higher Education’
Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, New
Delhi, 1994.
6. Nar Singh - ‘Indian Universities: Challenges and
Opportunities’, Universities News, March 28, 1994.
7. Ghosh D K - ‘Higher Education - Investment, Returns and
Mechanism of Maximisation of Returns’, University News,
May 1994.

98
8. Bajaj K K - ‘Resource Crunch and Distance Education
Alternative’, University News, April 11, 1994.
9. Faruqui and Qureshi - ‘Higher Education in India: Quality
Issue’, University News, Jan. 6, 1994.
10. Y S Kiranmayi - ‘Management of Higher Education in
India’, Crown Publications, New Delhi, 1981.
11. M M Sharma - ‘Financial Management of Universities in
India’, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1992.
12. M S Jeremiah - ‘Deteriorating Quality of Higher Education
- Owing to Poverty of Resources’, ABD Publishers, Jaipur.
13. L C Singh - ‘Self-Financing Higher Education’, University
News, Dec. 30, 2002 - Jan. 5, 2003.
14. A V Patankar - ‘Returns in Higher Education for Quality
Enhancement’, University News, June 18-24, 2001.
15. CVS Ranga Sai - ‘Developing Quality Management
Systems in Higher Education: Current Perspectives’,
University News, March 10-16, 2003.
16. Vandan Mohad and Veena Mohad - ‘Crisis in Higher
Education: Causes and Remedies’, University News May
26-June 01, 2003.
17. L Gogoi - ‘Resources Generation in Higher Education’,
University News, Jan. 7-13, 2002.
18. M R Kurup - ‘General Higher Education’, University News,
Feb. 11-17, 2002.
19. A N Maheshwari - ‘Higher Education at Cross-roads:
Challenges from Within and Without’, University News,
Dec. 31, 2001 - Jan. 6, 2002.

99
20. Nageshwar Rao and R P Das -‘Reorienting Strategies for
Self-sufficiency in University Finances’, University News,
Dec. 3-9, 2001.
21. Ashok Pankaj - ‘Regulating Higher Education in India:
Case for a Positive Role of the State’, University News July
23-29, 2001.
22. K K Bajaj - ‘Paradigm Shift in the Management of
Colleges’, University News, July 2-8, 2001.
23. Aruna Goel - ‘Financial Support of UGC for Educational
Programmes’, University News, June 4-10, 2001.
24. Bharat R Sant - ‘Overcoming Weaknesses in Higher
Education System’, May 28 - June 3, 2001.
25. Zeenat S Shafi - ‘What Ails Higher Education - A
r
Prescriptive Study’, University News, April 16-22, 2001.
26. A M Shah - ‘Higher Education and Research - Roots of
Mediocrity’, Economic and Political Weekly, May 28 - June
3/June 4-10, 2005.
27. Jandhyala B G Tilak - 'Public Subsidies in Education in
India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Jan. 24-30, 2004.
28. S Roy Choudhury, Shobhit Mahajan- ‘Why Subsidies
Higher Education?’ Economic and Political Weekly, May 1-
7, 2004.
29. Pawan Agarwal - ‘From Kothari Commission to Pitroda
Commission’, Economic and Political Weekly, Feb. 17-23,
2007.
30. M Anandkrishnan - ‘Critique of Knowledge Commiossion”,
Economic and Political Weekly, Feb. 17-23, 2007.

100
31. Pulapre Balakrishnan - ‘Higher Education Needs a Longer
View’, Economic and Political Weekly, Aug. 12-18, 2006.
32. Praveen Jha - ‘Withering Commitments and Weakening
Progress - State and Education in the era of Neoliberal
Reforms’, Economic and Political Weekly, Aug. 13-19,
2005.
33. Pawan Agarwal - ‘Higher Education Policy - Many
Contradictions’, Economic and Political Weekly, Nov. 11-
17, 2006.
p4. Surendra Singh - ‘Management of Universities in India:
Major Challenges and Required Responses’, University
News, Aug. 15-21, 2005.
35. Sayed Afzal Peerzade - ‘Some Economic Issues in
Financing Higher Education’, University News, , Oct. 10-16,
2005.
36. P K Dutta - ‘Higher Education in 21st Century : Challenges
and Opportunities’, University News, Nov. 28 - Dec. 4,
2005.
37. A S Shiralashetti - ‘Progress and Prospects of Higher
Education in india’, University News, March 5-11, 2007.
38. V C Kulandaiswamy - ‘Reconstruction of Higher Education
in India’, University News, July 4-10, 2005.
39. Promod Mathur and J K Pattanayak - ‘A Conceptual
Framework for Uniform Accounting Disclosure by Higher
Educational Institutions in India’, University News, Jan. 16-
22, 2006.

101
 SfflVAJ UNIVERSITY, AREA
SELECTED COLLEGES

t
<r; 4i..
\
i
w. Satara
PtSsegaon \
lm
K%
Rahimatpur J\
C
J Umbraj • • .A. i

, tJtj£—? ^-%r-Y
Karad ;
V va*
J jL \ tkavalhc Mahankal (
TasS&jj/' * # \
\V
Budgtrin ^ 51 '
£
J xv Islampur •

Y
ef
Y
.jr*
Kurucflwad

K Koparde Kol
L # T
Bidri \

f.
i iti — Professional College

S
z * ■*-- Ajara r
/ •—Non-professional College
C>s
/ /
) f
<f^.J

3|r Not as per scale