To translate the provisions of National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 into action, the University Grants Commission (UGC) began framing regulations at an unprecedented speed. It discovered an innovative method for fast execution — seeking feedback online even on complex issues that required in-person consultation.
The latest in the series of these quickly produced regulations is the Draft Regulation 2025 on minimum qualifications and eligibility conditions for appointing and promoting teachers in universities/colleges. Some provisions are considered by state governments to have far-fetching consequences, including the appointment of a vice chancellor. However, one controversial issue is the move to junk the 15-year score-based Academic Performance Indicator system (API) used in the promotion of faculty members without first pointing out the limitations of its performance through a study. The move to junk API shifts the promotion and direct recruitment processes away from objectivity to subjectivity in the assessment and evaluation of teachers.
What does the API method connote? The API method quantifies the required qualification, teaching experience, research work, and other academic contributions for the Quality Assessment Committee. This was conceived in 2010 during my tenure as chairman of the UGC, although the Indian Council of Agricultural Research adopted it a long time ago for the agriculture faculty. Why was it introduced? The UGC had pursued the institution of a pay scale for university/college teachers with the ministry of education, on a par with what exists for the Indian Administrative Service. After a lot of persuasion, the ministry agreed under the condition that, like the IAS officers, teachers should be regularly assessed. The UGC agreed to this and developed the API system.
Under the system, for an upward jump in the pay scale for an assistant professor and promotion to associate professor and, further, to professor, a faculty member was required to achieve a minimum API score based on teaching, research, and other academic achievements. The interview would only judge domain knowledge. The second reason was that quantifying academic performance would eliminate subjectivity and bring about objectivity and transparency. It would reduce or eliminate the likelihood of bias, discrimination, nepotism, prejudice, and even corruption. The API system was further improved upon during the 7th Pay Commission’s term, and, accordingly, regulations were amended in 2018. The experience of the past 15 years shows that the system has proved fair, non-discriminatory, and transparent. It has also incentivised the teaching community to meet conditions for promotion by undertaking research, improving teaching, and other academic activities, including refresh and orientation courses. It indeed boosted quality and standards and brought in fair inclusion.
After 15 years of such a positive experience, the UGC, without studying and pointing out the API system’s limitations, has proposed to replace it. It is nothing short of a catastrophe and a worrisome shift from a regime of objective promotions to discretionary promotions. By removing quantifiable and independently verifiable parameters, the draft regulation has made the quality of the faculty solely dependent on the selection committee, assuming members possess academic excellence, high moral character, and integrity.
Sadly, this system has seriously compromised merit-based selection in the past. Discretion has rarely been used to ensure quality and promote excellence. It is a euphemism for favouritism and discrimination, not least because of ideological differences. The new regulations’ complete reliance on the selection committee’s discretion has raised alarm among the faculty. The absence of clear shortlisting criteria and complete control given to the selection committee make the process completely opaque.
Surprisingly, the regulation has introduced nine new qualifications. These are: Innovative Teaching Contributions, Research or Teaching Lab Development, Consultancy/Sponsored Research Funding, Teaching Contributions in Indian Languages, Teaching-Learning and Research in Indian Knowledge Systems, Student Internship/Project Supervision, Digital Content Creation for MOOCs, Community Engagement and Service, and Start-up. None of these categories have been clearly defined. Therefore, the assessment metrics, if any, are left entirely to the selection committee’s discretion. These qualifications, with limited bearing on teaching or research, potentially divert attention from the fundamental duties of teaching and research. What we know from experience — for instance, the introduction of experience in Indian Knowledge System as a criterion — is that it is biased towards Brahmanical knowledge systems, with other knowledge systems like Charvaka, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other religious sects bypassed. In fact, the regulation makes such a contribution, along with three others from the nine listed, compulsory for appointment under direct recruitment and promotion at all stages.
The selection committee is all-in-all. It has been left to the selection committee’s discretion to decide whether the research publications are in peer-reviewed journals, whether the book chapters are in books published by reputed publishers, and whether a candidate’s contributions in the nine areas are notable. It is obvious that in the absence of numerical marking through the API score, the scope for prejudice and discrimination is high. The sooner the UGC opens discussions with stakeholders and brings changes in a manner that ensures objectivity, promotes quality, inclusiveness, transparency, and, above all, confidence in the selection process, the better.
Sukhadeo Thorat is former chairman,University Grants Commission (UGC).The views expressed are personal