UGC's flawed proposals for teacher hiring, promotions

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF NUMERICAL MARKING THROUGH THE API SCORE, THE SCOPE FOR PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION IS HIGH

- Sukhadeo Thorat

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.