The fate of Vaid Dinanath Upadhayay, who was nominated as the dean of Ayurvedic Medicine by the university Standing Committee early this year, will now be decided by the Chancellor, as per the decision taken by the Management Council on October 31.

The MC members were divided over the issue when the opinion of the Advocate General, C J Sawant, favouring the continuation of Upadhayay, was tabled in the house.

Sawant had ruled that the dean should not be disqualified as his earlier expulsion as an examiner was superseded by the university in 1991. The then Executive Council had superseded the earlier resolution debarring him as an examiner and had decided that he be associated with examination work. The AG had thus concluded that section44 (e) of the Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 does not apply to Upadhayay. Section 44 (e) states: ``A person shall be disqualified as a member of any authority if he/she has been punished for indulging in unfair practices in the conduct of any examination in any form anywhere.''

However, in a complaint filed by senate member Amarjit Manhas recently, it was stated that though Upadhayay was reinstated as an examiner, he was never exonerated from the charges of committing an examination irregularity, based on students' complaints in 1985.

On Saturday, a majority of elected members stayed away from the MC meeting, including the three SC members who had nominated Upadhyay as the dean. Of the four elected members present, two gave a note of dissent over the AG's opinion on the matter and urged the VC to forward their note along with the AG's opinion to the Chancellor. When contacted on Saturday, Dr Snehalata Deshmukh said: ``I will be sending a note to the Chancellor in any case.''

Meanwhile, Manhas said:``The university should rise above legal quibbling on whether a certain rule applies to the case or not. Like Ceasar's wife, any person holding such a high post should always be above suspicion. Anyway, I shall now accept whatever decision the Chancellor takes.''

No jobs for 54

In its meeting, the Management Council decided to terminate the 54 temporary university employees since their appointment has flouted a state government circular that ordered a freeze on fresh appointments in view of its zero budget compulsions. Some MC members expressed surprise over the issue being included in the meeting, since it does not come under MC's purview.

Questions were also raised as to why only 54 employees (mostly children of permanent varsity staff) were employed in a manner that also flouts the criteria of eligibility and competition. Under government regulations, children of working staff can get jobs only on compassionate ground.V-C Snehlata Deshmukh said: ``The temporary employees will now not becontinued.''