Basis of appointment in university responsibilities: The question of merit or share was forced this year, the meeting of the Executive Council of the University on Saturday proved it again - merit is debated, but the university is run on the basis of party share.

After the criticism that the party share in the responsibility of the university was too much, it was expected that the practice of appointment based on meritocracy will now continue. Therefore, due to the declared/undeclared struggle, the vacant post could not be appointed since June. But even the slightest hope of merit appreciation has been shattered by the party system. The same infamous practice continued after the deans of five study institutes and three faculties, two research centers and one directorate were appointed on the basis of party affiliation. While a person in a leadership role in an academic institution like a university should be entitled to all respect. However, when the leaders of the party are openly opposing each other through social media, it is also damaging the merit and dignity of the person who gets the appointment.

8 deans and 18 campus head posts were vacant since last June. For the purpose of appointing those posts through open competition, a selection and recommendation committee has been formed and applications have been requested. Separate recommendation committee recommended 3/3 names as per procedure. But the appointment process was prolonged because there was a dispute in the Executive Council, which consisted of 7 members including Rector, Registrar, Nominee Dean and Professors under the chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor. There was a difference of opinion whether to appoint the first among the three names given by the recommendation committee or to appoint one of the three. None of the three can be appointed. However, in this process, the party leaders rather than the members of the executive council made it clear that the real power of appointment is not in the executive council, but in the office of the party. The same fact has been proved after the appointment of Dean and Director. 

A dean is considered a position of powerful responsibility in a university. The dean has direct leadership in the academic and administrative areas of the respective study institutes and faculties. He has a decisive role in the decision process of affiliation of colleges, number of seats. The Dean's Office regulates and controls the subordinate colleges, recommends the appointment of Assistant Deans and Campus Heads. Since he is a member of the senate called the university parliament, the dean also has a role in making the rules of the university. Two Deans are also members of the Executive Council. But all these roles are responsibilities assigned to make the university vibrant, not to establish the influence of a particular individual. However, this sensitive purpose is being ignored. Instead, it is becoming a matter of party prestige. As a result, the issue of which party is close has started to gain more importance than the functionality of the dean. The credibility and acceptability of the person concerned was higher when the appointment was made through a natural process. However, when the party interferes, the overall personality of the person who gets the appointment shrinks. This is a matter of concern to all as it is widely agreed that partisanship is largely responsible for the deteriorating reputation of the universities. But being sensitive to this, institutional efforts for reform could not be made. The latest appointment case has made it clear how challenging the prospect of tertiary education reform is. If this trend continues, the educational and academic image of the university is sure to be more tarnished. Therefore, in order to improve the image of the University, the political parties and concerned individuals and organizations need to have a special sense of responsibility and initiative. Despite the

episode, it is not without improvement. In the past, the party and professors' organization close to the party used to recommend the dean. Appointments were made on that basis. Now at least there is competition between professors. In order to ensure the educational and academic environment of the university in the future, a comprehensive reform in the appointment process is necessary to institutionalize a system where competent people are given responsibility. For that, there is a need for reform from appointment laws to regulations. If the first number of the recommendation is to be appointed, laws and regulations should be made accordingly. The present Vice Chancellor Kesharjung Baral himself was number two in the recommendation made by the committee formed for the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. But the subject assigned to him is also memorable here. The process has also been criticized as controlled open competition. However, it has improved a step. When the dean came to the appointment, after the party leaders participated in the debate and as they said, the question arose whether the status is strong or the person. But if the reforms so far are made systematic and methodical, the future path is improving.  Along with the