NAAC chairman Bhushan Patwardhan resigns to ‘safeguard the sanctity’ of post

NEW DELHI: The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) chairman Bhushan Patwardhan gave his resignation after alleging that universities used malpractices to receive “questionable grades”. He wrote that he had “nothing personal in this matter” and was aiming to “safeguard the sanctity” of the post.

“I have finally resigned from the position on March 5. I have explained my reasons in the letter to the UGC and I do not wish to comment any further. There has been no response from the UGC on my letter,” he told Careers360 .

Bhushan Patwardhan was appointed as NAAC chairman in February last year. Last month, he in a letter to University Grants Commission (UGC) chairman M Jagadesh Kumar expressed his intent to resign and informed that he will only act after receiving a response from UGC.

“I tried to introduce important reforms in the Assessment & Accreditation processes and systems which are detailed in the self-explanatory NAAC Whitepaper in accordance with the letter and spirit of NEP 2020. Despite my sincere efforts many crucial short-term and essential measures which needed top priority and implementation seem to have been taken very casually by some of the concerned members in the recent EC meetings,” he said in a letter dated February 26.

“Based on my experience, various complaints from the stakeholders, and review committee reports, I had expressed my apprehensions earlier about the possibility of vested interests, malpractices, and nexus among the persons concerned, offering thereby a green corridor by presumably manipulating ICT, DVV and PTV processes leading to the awarding of questionable grades to some HEIs,” he said.

Patwardhan also alleged that his communication with the UGC chairman was “completely ignored”.

NAAC chairman's resignation letter

On March 3, “Anil Sahasrabudhe was nominated as the new NAAC chairperson by Kumar using his authority as the president of the NAAC’s general council,” as per reports.

Claiming that he was not informed about the appointment of Sahasrabudhe, he said his letter was interpreted wrongly and that it was a Letter of Intent and NOT the Letter of Resignation.