47.Objective Criteria for Promotion to higher academic posts

 As already indicated in an earlier episode, promotion to higher posts in Calicut REC was not purely based on seniority. For those who want to get promoted as Assistant Professor from Lecturer and to Professor from Assistant professor could not get it based on length of service alone. When a junior is promoted because of higher qualifications and better research publications etc at least a few of the seniors felt disappointed and thought that injustice has been done to them. As the decision of the selection committee cannot be questioned in a court of law, this type of complaints and criticisms could be   spread around the campus only. If somebody gives them a false hope that if a case is filed in the court, the promotion may be cancelled, a few had gone to court. Even if a case is filed, such service matters get years to be settled and by the time it is settled, the complainant must have retired from service. As far as decisions on civil cases are settled, our judiciary is painfully slow. One of our seniors had filed such a case against some of us when we were promoted as Assistant professors as already indicated, but nothing happened to us.

 

When candidates from outside and those working in the institution apply for the same post and are interviewed, the Principal and others in the administration know well about the plus and minus points of the internal candidates. However, practically little will be  known about the external candidates except what is documented in their application and presented at the time of interview. Obviously, it is   not fair to evaluate a person’s full potential from an interview for a few minutes. In such circumstances, the internal candidates who had been working for years will be normally at a disadvantage as  the demerits could  be amplified and used against them at the time of selection. This is particularly true for candidates who are outspoken and do not mind criticising authorities or who does not say ‘yes’ to everything done by the administration. Probably the ‘yes’ men will be at an advantage on such occasions.

 

When I was holding charge as Head of the department of Electrical Engineering, a major selection was due half way through my term. Selection to two  posts of professors and 3 posts of Assistant professors were to take place. Number of vacant posts are less and eligible candidates more, and most of the candidates were from the college, it was pretty certain that comparison will be difficult. Therefore, we, heads of departments of major departments, Civil, Electrical, Electronics  and Mechanical Engineering decided to formulate a set of general objective criteria for comparing the performance of internal candidates. We decided to use this  for expressing our opinion about the candidates to the selection panel. Most of the work was done by Dr.Y.Venkataramani, Dr Vincent Paul and myself. If I remember correct, we arrived at an index marks of 100 which was divided as follows.

 

1)Experience: One point each for every additional year of experience subject to a maximum of 10 points  ( For the post of Assistant  professor post  minimum years of experience  was 5 years and for professors post 10  years )

2)Educational qualifications: 5 points each for any additional qualification, subject to a maximum of 10 points.

3)Excellence in teaching: Maximum  20 points  based on the  teacher evaluation  index ( The  teacher  evaluation index was calculated  based on the  opinion of the students in REC at that time)

4) Developmental  activities in the department

A) Laboratory development: 5 points each for setting up any new laboratory   by obtaining additional grants from any external agency, maximum of 10 points (Examples, laboratories set up  under Institutional Network scheme, Special  sponsored projects  etc)

B)Continuing Education programmes: Organizing Summer/ Winter Schools, Short term training  programmes for teachers  from other institutions etc , 10 points for courses of duration 15 days or more. 5 points for courses of duration one week and 3 points for courses of 1-3 days.   Maximum 10 points.

C)Research publications: 5 points each for every paper in a reputed  (reviewed) journal, 2 points each for every conference  paper , Maximum 15 points for publications.

D) Research guidance: 10 points each for every PhD thesis completed and thesis submitted, 2 points each for every MTech  thesis guided, Maximum  15 points.

5) Industrial consultancy: Based on the amount received for consultancy, maximum of 5 points, 3 points for any consultancy above 2 lakhs

6)  Other extra academic duties: Warden of hostels, In charge of transport, Sports, Library etc   5 points each, maximum 5 points.

 

We collected   the data from all the internal candidates who applied in a format and verified the claims from departmental records or the supporting documents presented by them. The  points  awarded to each item was not disclosed to them. We presented this at the time of the interview for the information of the   members of the  panel interviewing  the  candidates. The members of the panel unanimously congratulated us on the preparation of this comprehensive list of desirable activities for a member of faculty in a national institution   like REC. It was gratifying for us who developed this that this criterion was used with minor modifications for the Career Advancement Scheme of Technical Education wing  of  Ministry  of Human Resources Development, Government of India.

 

 We had three applicants against two vacancies of professor’s post. The marks obtained by all the three were  between 50 and 60. One of them got almost 60 and other two were close to 55. It was difficult to decide   which of the two is to be selected as there was nothing to choose between them. One of them was my classmate at TKMCE and both were my good friends. Both were equally qualified but one of them was a few years senior to the other. Both had few publications and both had done PhD from Calicut university part time under the guidance  of one of our senior colleagues. The selection committee decided to choose the senior person among the two as second in the rank. My classmate was eliminated. However, I insisted that he also should be ranked as No. 3 in the list. Others in the panel was asking why should we rank three persons against two vacancies. I said as are all of them qualified and eligible, let them at least have the satisfaction of being included in the rank list.  Finally, they accepted my recommendation,  a small favour to the Head of the Department. (In fact, I had something else in my mind. As per the rules in force, this rank list will be valid for two years and one professor  in the  department was to retire after about a year. I was hopeful that my classmate  ranked  three in the list  will be able to get that post after a year). However, there is a saying in Malayalam - even if the priest gives, God will not give. Unfortunately,   he could not get the post as the retirement age of teaching staff was enhanced from 60 to 62 after a few months and my dear classmate could not get the benefit I expected him to get. I could not help my friend in spite of my best efforts.  He was sore with me for some time afterwards but in his disappointment, he did not realize that I have my own limitation as a member of a selection panel where the state  minister of education  was the Chairman.

 

In contrast, the candidates for the Assistant professor post were equally good. One of them was too good and a person who could show almost double of what he really is. In fact, the panel members were really surprised when boldly he distributed copies of a brief write up on his achievements at the start of the interview. He was the topper in the ranking as per the criteria we had prepared. Among the other two, one of the candidates had not taken his PhD and had very few publications but he had done a lot of work for the department on his own. The third person was   better qualified but more self-centred and so second rank went to the person who had contributed to the departmental development and the other person ranked third. At the time of interview, only two posts were available, but after the interview, somehow another   vacancy also arose and the third person also was promoted. One of the members of the interview panel, I think the Director of Technical Education at that time, made a statement  “Mohandas, the Assistant  professors  we have selected today will be  of better help to you  in running the department  than the  professors”  which was proved  to be the real truth.

 

After the selection, we published the criteria we used for ranking the internal candidates in the department. At least one or two of the candidates complained that if we had known this earlier, we could have definitely done better. I told them that they can better start working from then onwards  for  the  next selection.