18 Assessment and Promotion Policies

Keywords

IITB promotion policy, faculty APR, IIT Bombay promotion criteria, Associate Professor, Full Professor

18.1 Application Process

The schedule of faculty assessment and promotion is announced by Dean (Faculty Affairs) after due approval by the Director.

Applications are invited from faculty members who satisfy the eligibility and experience criteria as per MoE norms for the respective position. The application form requires each candidate to furnish information about their work during the assessment period (that is, period being held in the current position).

18.2 Experience (Required on the date of application):

Professor: A minimum of ten years teaching/research/professional experience of which at least 4 years should be at the level of Associate Professor in a research organization or industry as on the date of application. The candidate should have demonstrated leadership in research in a specific area of specialization in terms of guidance of PhD students, strong record of publications in reputed journals and conferences, patents, laboratory/course development and/or other recognized relevant professional activities.

Associate Professor: A minimum of six years’ teaching/research/professional experience of which 3 years should be at the level of Assistant Professor Grade I, Senior Scientific Officer/Senior Design Engineer in a research organization or industry. The candidate should have demonstrated adequate experience of independent research in terms of guidance of M.Tech. and PhD students, publications in reputed journals and conferences, patents, laboratory/course development and/or other recognized relevant professional activities.

18.3 Institute Faculty Advisory Committee

The Institute Faculty Advisory Committee (IFAC) as an advisory body to the Dean (FA) on various matters of faculty interest, and matters of faculty development.

IFAC Composition: The committee is constituted by the Director and chaired by the Dean (FA). IFAC has the Deputy Director (AIA) as a permanent invitee. The committee is reconstituted every two years with the existing members in each category being replaced by Heads of academic units not represented in the committee.

IFAC Role: The IFAC has the following broad roles. Apart from these roles, the Director may request IFAC to consider and make recommendations on matters related to faculty affairs.

Consideration of short listing criteria of academic unit for entry level as well as promotion for different faculty positions
Pre-processing of applications of internal candidates for promotions
Processing of nominations for Chair Professor positions
Nominations of faculty members for various national /international awards
Faculty development and mentorship
Faculty self-assessment

18.4 Shortlisting Process

The applications submitted by the internal candidates are first shortlisted by their respective academic units through the Department their Policy Committee or Professors’ Committee as per the academic units shortlisting criteria as approved by Institute Faculty Advisory Committee (IFAC). The shortlisting criteria framed by each academic unit ensures that (i) the effort put in by the candidate in the current position is adequately recognized and (ii) promotion to the next higher position in the minimum period (that is, just after the minimum mandated number of years of experience have been completed) requires performance at a high level as judged by the standards of the average performance of the academic unit or subgroup within the academic unit to which the candidate belongs. Each academic unit recognizes the contributions of the candidate in research, teaching and professional/department/institute Services. In addition to the performance criteria of the academic unit approved by the IFAC, guidance of one PhD scholar (in an advanced stage of her research) for the Associate Professor’s post, or two completed PhDs under the candidate’s guidance (at least one completed + one past the pre-synopsis stage) for the Professor’s post would normally be considered necessary. Any deviation from this norm would have to be appropriately justified at the IFAC meeting. During the shortlisting process, the academic unit may note, and give due importance to, instances of exceptional performance, such as sustained excellence in teaching, publications of high impact/ in high impact-factor journals, highly successful translation and commercialization of the faculty’s research.

Each application is required to have eight (8) peer reviews. Out of these 8, at most 4 reviewers can be suggested by the candidate while the remaining reviewers would be identified by the academic unit. All applications considered by the academic units with their recommendations are presented to the IFAC by the Heads of the respective academic units for consideration. IFAC takes into account the shortlisting done by the academic unit and verifies that the criteria approved by the IFAC have been satisfied.

Referees and online submission (Promotions 2026 advertisement)

Former (PhD/post-doc) advisers/mentors and co-authors/collaborators can be included in the candidate’s referee list, but should not be in the list prepared by the Head/DPC.
No IITB faculty member (even a collaborator) is allowed to be a peer reviewer.
The candidate fills in four referee names on the last page of the application form and submits it to the Head of the academic unit. The referee list is not uploaded with the application.
Applications are uploaded on the OCS portal as a single zip file containing, in order: the summary sheet, the application form (excluding the referee list), the CV, and three best papers.

Source: Eligibility criteria, application form and summary sheet.

18.5 Peer Review

Applications approved by IFAC enter into the next stage of peer review. The Administration sends the application dossiers to the selected academic referees, primarily for their inputs on the research carried out by the candidate, as seen by her important publications (reprints of such publications may form part of the dossier sent). The letters requesting peer input also state in concise terms the range of activities considered as important for a faculty member in IIT Bombay, so that the referees can judge the quantum of research output in a proper context. A minimum of three to four peer reviews are considered necessary before a selection committee can be constituted.

18.6 Selection Committee and Interview

The Dean (FA) recommends to the Director the setting up of a selection committee for the candidates of an academic unit with composition as per IIT Bombay statutes. All the applications received by the academic unit, the shortlisting criteria of the academic unit and all candidates considered by the academic unit are placed before the selection committee for its consideration and approval. After the due constitution of the statutory selection committees, interview schedules are published by the administration, and the candidates are invited for personal interview. All the internal candidates must present a seminar based on the research performed during the assessment period in the academic unit. External expert members of the selection committee are invited to attend the seminar. In addition, candidates are also asked to present a research summary during the personal interview. The selection committee recommends to the competent authority whether or not a candidate may be promoted.

18.7 Chairperson BoG Approval

The selection committee recommendations and decisions are placed before the Chairperson BoG for approval. The appointment letters are then issued by the Director after necessary approval by the Board and following other Institute norms and procedures regarding salary and other terms etc.

18.8 Method for Determining Professors to be Moved to HAG scale

Composition of D-HAG Committee: Scoring should be done by a committee called Departmental committee for Higher Administrative Grade (D-HAG) constituted by the Head of the academic unit. The committee is to consist of 3 to 4 members, all of whom must be on HAG scale. In case there are not enough people on HAG scale in a academic unit, faculty on HAG scale from other academic units may be inducted into the committee.
Submission of HAG form to D-HAG: Heads will be provided a list A of professors on HAG scale as well as those recommended for HAG in earlier years and another list B of professors who have at least six years of experience from the date of joining as professor and thus deemed eligible. Eligible professors in list B will fill up the data in the HAG form and submit it with their CV to the Convener of the D-HAG.
Computation and scrutiny of scores as per the new guidelines: D-HAG is responsible for computing scores for each faculty member who has submitted the form. Score computation is to be done based on the guidelines below. Scores awarded to a faculty member by the D-HAG committee (with category-wise split) must be made available to the faculty member for feedback, before it is sent to IFAC. The Conveners of D-HAG committees will present the cases of professors who qualify for HAG scale in a meeting of IFAC. Justifications for each score, including any additional academic unit policies, and academic unit averages (such as number of courses and publications) must be provided to IFAC. IFAC will release a list of professors recommended for HAG scale.

The list of professors eligible and recommended by IFAC will be updated every year. However, once a faculty member is recommended for HAG, she/he will continue to remain recommended in future years, and need not apply again.

Scores approved by IFAC will be used to create a combined list of recommended professors (from current and earlier years) who are not yet in HAG scale. In case there are more recommended faculty than vacancies, the list is to be sorted by seniority based on date of promotion as professor (joining date for those who join directly as professor); ties are to be broken by date of birth as per existing practice. Vacancies in HAG scale are to be filled as per this seniority list.

Those Professors of CFTIs who are appointed as Director in CFTIs by the MoE, shall deemed to have placed in the HAG scale notionally from the day they took charge as Director in CFTIs or from the day guidelines were issued by MoE vide its letter No. F.23-1/2008-TS.II dated 18.08.2009, whichever is later.

18.8.1 Score calculation method

Points are computed for the applicant based on the following criteria.

Teaching (A1): A teaching score that is not less than half of the six year annual academic unit average teaching score counts for 1 point. A teaching score that is more than the six year annual academic unit and less than twice the academic unit average counts for 3 points. Finally, a teaching evaluation score in excess of twice the academic unit average counts for 5 points. In addition, the following recommendations are considered:
1. Courses taught by the faculty member in the evaluation period (that is, after promotion to professor) are to be counted.
2. “1” course is defined as a full semester lecture course. This includes summer courses delivered in full lecture/lab.
3. For a course with sections, each section of a course can be considered as a separate course.
4. Lab course = 0.3, 0.5 or 1.0 of a regular lecture course, based on credits, academic unit norms and actual effort per faculty.
5. Academic unit’s average is to be computed based on course load in the previous 6 years.
6. Academic unit may consider lab development as equal to 0.5 or 1 course depending on the effort involved.
7. A shared lecture courses by two instructors may be given 0.5 credit of a full Course.
8. A half-semester course is to be given 0.5 credit of a full course.
9. Academic units which run/maintain facilities used extensively by other entities may optionally consider operation of such facilities as equivalent to 0.5 course.
10. No credit to be given for course that consists entirely of coordination and uses external resources/lecturers.
11. If score is 3 by above rules, and further the teaching score computed for excellence in teaching award for the previous 5 years (under the new scheme) is at or above the 80\(^{\text{th}}\) percentile of academic unit faculty scores, increment score to 5.
12. If score is 3 by above rule-set, plus a textbook published during period of evaluation, increment score to 5.
Academic Research (A2): 1 point is awarded if M.Tech. / M.Sc. theses are guided. 3 points are awarded if the Ph.D and M.Tech./M.Sc. theses have been guided and the number of publications is 1.5 to 3 times current academic unit publication norms for promotion from Associate to full Professor. Finally, if in addition to the previous point, the number of publications is more than 3 times current academic unit publication norms for promotion from Associate to full Professor, 5 points are awarded. In addition, the following recommendations are considered:
1. B.Tech/M.Sc. project guidance of a research kind may be optionally included (Departmental option).
2. Publication norms approved by IFAC for promotion are to be followed when counting number of publications (e.g. quality requirements on venue, extra weightage for very high quality venues, averages by specialization within the academic unit, etc.)
3. 2 extra points (subject to maximum total of 5) may be awarded for national/international recognition of research, such as national level awards (Swarna Jayanti award, S. S. Bhatnagar award, Infosys award), Fellowship of recognized national/international academies (NASI, INSA, INAE, IAS, AAS). Awards/Fellowships/other recognition other than those listed may be considered subject to approval of IFAC. Date of conferment of recognition need not be in assessment period.
4. 2 extra points (subject to maximum total of 5) may be awarded for any other exceptional achievements, subject to approval of IFAC.
Sponsored Research (B1): Applicants with no projects get a score of 0. The total count of projects of candidate initiated during the assessment period (see notes below for fractional counts) are to be compared with 6 \(\times\) the academic unit average of projects initiated over last 6 years. Candidates with count < 6 \(\times\) the academic unit average will receive 1 point. Those with scores in (1 to 2) times (6 \(\times\) academic unit average) will get 3 points. Those with score > 2 times (6 \(\times\) academic unit average) will receive 5 points. The additional recommendations are:
1. Information about projects and funding are to be taken from IRCC online records
2. For multi-investigative projects, fractional share of a professor should be as per share declared in IRCC.
3. For large departmental projects such as FIST, IRHPA etc., the academic unit’s committee to consider contributions while apportioning credit.
4. A transferred technology = 1 sponsored project
5. Number/scope of projects and/or funding initiated in the assessment period may be taken into account when comparing with academic unit average
6. Count of projects and funding as per IRCC.
7. 2 extra points (subject to maximum total of 5) may be awarded for exceptional achievements in sponsored research projects, subject to approval of IFAC.
Extension Activities (B2): Significant participation in any one activity would yield in 1 point. Participation in any three activities yields 3 points, while any five yields 5 points. Activities include those listed below. Participation level in each activity may be judged as indicated with each activity.
1. Consultancy assignments handled (total value of consulting assignments handled may be taken into account)
2. Number of national technical programmes coordinated (e.g. SERC schools)
3. Number of workshops and conferences conducted
4. Number of membership of boards, national committees, editorships
5. Number of Continuing Education Programmes (Courses) conducted
6. Outreach activities
7. 2 extra points may be given for exceptional performance in any one or more activities, subject to approval of IFAC
8. Committee to consider deciding “Significant/ Extensive” based on academic unit average over last 6 years)
Administration (B3): Points are to be awarded for each year of administrative service on Senate approved positions, as per list below. Maximum score is 5, and fractional parts of total score are to be discarded after addition.
1. Warden, Associate Warden, Associate Dean, Heads of Centres, Professor in Charge, Convener of IDPs, UGAPEC, PGAPEC: 0.5 point per year
2. Dean, Head of academic units: 1 point per year
3. Director, Deputy Director: 1.5 points for each year
4. GATE/JEE Chair: 1.5 points per term
5. GATE/JEE Vice Chair: 1 point per term
6. Points for any other positions may be put up to IFAC for approval

Candidates who meet the following criteria after IFAC approval are to be recommended for HAG scale: 1. Total score is calculated based on A1 score + A2 score + best TWO of (B1,B2,B3) scores 2. A score of at least 1 in each of A1 and A2 is mandatory 3. Total score must be at least 10

18.9 Annual performance appraisal

The annual performance appraisal process is in the form of a self-assessment. The process should be completed by 31\(^{\text{st}}\) March of every year and the forms will be filled up online by individual faculty member at the Faculty Assessment Portal. The self-assessment form includes sections on Teaching, Research and Administration being mandatory and the sections on Professional and Extensional activities being optional. The methodology of self-assessment, the manner of quantifying performance in various areas, as well as the concept of a single performance index that combines performance in different areas, shall be reviewed by IFAC at the end of 3 years. At this stage, with appropriate modifications introduced as a result of the experience gained, IFAC may consider using the cumulative record of self-assessments as a basis for shortlisting candidates for selection to higher posts.