The editorial published in Kantipur, titled 'How long will the university run without Vice-Chancellor?', I found it accurate and relevant. About two years ago, Kesharjung Baral was appointed as Vice-Chancellor for four years through an open competition, a first in the 60-year history of the university.

Vice-Chancellor Baral tried to improve the university by avoiding political interference, so the university really took a positive step in the academic field. But he was forced to resign after not only the non-cooperation of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister but also vertical interference due to non-employment. In this way, after creating an easy way to recruit UML workers, the chancellor has made the rector the acting vice-chancellor. Since then, no interest has been shown in filling up the sensitive and important post of Vice-Chancellor, which is vacant. Tribhuvan University, which has nearly five lakh students, has been without a vice-chancellor for one and a half years. Trying to run Tribhuvan University on a personal basis is not worth it. Is it appropriate for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to intervene and make arbitrary decisions when they should be thinking about how to make the university student-friendly, how to give it the true form of an academic institution?

- Gangaraj Aryal , Panini-8, Pali, Arghakhanchi