Preferring to term his decision as yet another casualty of a systemic failure plaguing the faculty, he says the uncontrolled expansion of engineering colleges, the consequent burgeoning numbers, insufficient staff and stifling mediocrity had created a pressure-cooker effect that exploded all of a sudden last Thursday.

Dismissing allegations of bias in an instance relating to Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute (of which he is vice-principal) as well as charges of ``constant interference'' in the Allowed To Keep Terms facility, he says it is unfortunate that his ``discussion'' with the Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena (BVS) ended in a flashpoint last Thursday.

In an exclusive interview to SUDESHNA CHATTERJEE,Prof Sundaram, who was appointed as dean in 1995, says the incident has greatly saddened him.

Why did you tender your resignation?

It is the first time I have been held personally responsible for the ills afflicting the faculty, which is actually a systemic failure. I could not take it. Hence, I have tendered my resignation.

It has been alleged that you displayed bias in an instance where a student of VJTI was allowed to take the Semester VI exam without appearing for the Semester V exam.

In a college of 3,000 students, this is an oversight by the college office. In any case, the university has since been intimated.

Students have alleged that you were constantly interfering with the ATKT facility by issuing ``contradictory'' regulations since September 1997.

That is another blatant lie. There was one set of regulations in force for more than 10 years till the academic year 1997-98. However, following students' complaints, the university sought to change these inend-1997.

What are these ordinances about?

There are essentially two sets of ordinances, one relating to eligibility for admission and the other relating to eligibility for examinations. They recommend admission to the next semester if a student does not have a backlog in more than four heads in the two earlier semesters taken together.

The eligibility for examinations was relaxed, allowing a student to appear for an even semester examination along with not more than six heads in the previous three semester examinations. This however evoked a mixed reaction. A section of students had opposed the new rules, saying they were left with very little time to prepare for the next exam. Therefore, it was decided to allow students to opt for either set of rules for the first half of 1998.

Why are you being held responsible for the shake-up in rules?

I have no idea. In fact, I was only part of the process of revising the rules. Students had expressed their grievances to Vice-Chancellor DrSnehalata Deshmukh in 1996. The Vice-Chancellor then discussed the matter with me and we felt it had to be studied in detail. Hence, I appointed a committee, which recommend the revised ordinances. These were also approved by the Academic and Management councils.

Students have been complaining about the regular delay in declaration of results over the last five years.

We have an acute staff shortage but we are trying to make amends. Students do not stand to lose a year as they receive special term grants.

So, who or what is responsible for the mayhem?

I did not ``interfere'' with the ATKT facility frequently during the last two years. Rather, these actions were the result of the acute shortage of faculty members required for teaching and examination assessment work as well as the inordinately large student body desiring to rush through the four-year Bachelor's degree in Engineering course. These students are largely mediocre in their qualifications and aptitude. Their lack of patiencewith the rules and regulations caused tremendous angst, which erupted over the last two years.

Are you having second thoughts about your resignation?

Let me have a talk with the Vice-Chancellor first.