The Vice-Chancellor Search and Recommendation Committee has made an unnatural delay in recommending the name of the Vice-Chancellor of Kathmandu University (KU). Although the committee interviewed the candidates on February 3, it has not been able to recommend the names of 3 persons to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.

8 out of 20 people who applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to draw attention to the delay. The Vice-Chancellor candidates have complained that despite completing all the selection procedures according to the procedures made by the committee itself, they could not recommend their names. They had earlier written a letter to the Chancellor raising questions about the impartiality of the coordinator of the committee, Sureshraj Sharma. According to the procedure in the

letter, it is emphasized that the names of 3 people who get the best marks from the selection process should be recommended. The coordinator alleged that there was manipulation to recommend candidates who were not among the 3 candidates. "On the basis of merit, the names of 3 people who get high marks should be recommended, but the committee is confused," said a competitor, "It's surprising why the names of 3 people who get high marks have been stopped from being recommended, the more it's delayed, the more the game is." According to sources, no consensus has been reached within the committee regarding recommending the name to the Chancellor. Sources close to the committee members said that there is a difference of opinion on the issue of recommending the vice-chancellor to those who are behind the merit. There is a provision to recommend the names of 3 people who get the highest marks in the ongoing procedure for the search and recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor and 1 of them will be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.

Similarly, the officials of the university have also drawn the attention of the committee to finish the vice chancellor recommendation process as soon as possible. 13 officers of the university sent a letter and drew attention to complete the recommendation process of the vice-chancellor as soon as possible. It is mentioned in the letter that due to the delay in the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor, the efficiency and impartiality of the committee have also started to be questioned. It is also expressed the belief that the names of three people will be recommended to the Vice-Chancellor based on the procedures and criteria made for the selection of the Vice-Chancellor.