7. Governance and Administration

Faculty orientation deck · draft / consultation marks

100score (Autonomous)

6/8metrics (Autonomous)

Processcategory

Criterion 7

Criterion 7 | Governance and Administration

Understanding the metrics · Preparing the institution

Meaning • Documents • Responsibilities • Measurement
6 baseline metrics + 4 supplementary topics

Orientation to the proposed ten-attribute reform framework. Consultation/draft marks are not final official scoring rules.

Faculty orientation edition • 23 October 2026

Metric 7.1/7.2 | Institutional Development Plan

10 marks

Explain a strategic plan linking vision, goals, milestones, resources and periodic review. Show stakeholder participation and course correction.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Approved IDP.
formulation and review minutes.
Academic and Administrative Audit report and action taken.

Who is responsible?

Principal and Planning Committee.
IQAC.
departments and management.

HEI clearly stated its vision and mission and oriented well drafted Institutional development plan (IDP)/strategic plan by promoting the same through:

Stakeholders involvement in the formulation of IDP/strategic plan
Displaying vision and mission and quality policy in a various strategic location, on the website, brochures, and advertisements.
The IDP/strategic plan along with long term goals, Operational Goals, clearly defined milestones are widely published and hosted in institutional website.
The regular academic and administrative audit accounts and re-orient the institutional activities towards the IDP/strategic plan
Specific interventions strategies and course correction to re-align to IDP/strategic plan

Institutional Development Plan | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Connect each goal to a target, responsible body, implementation evidence and review; the plan alone is not proof of progress.

Draft weightage / source maximum

10 marks

Consultation metric 7.1

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

How does our department contribute to institutional goals?

Which priorities need resources or collaborative action?

What evidence will demonstrate progress beyond completing activities?

An IDP goal to strengthen research is linked to a budget, faculty development, milestones and annual review.
Review institutional strengths, gaps and stakeholder needs.
Translate long-term goals into annual actions, responsibilities, timelines and budgets.
Publish the approved plan and periodically review progress

A vision statement without implementation and review is not a development plan.

Metric 7.2 /7.3 | E-Governance

10 marks

Explain the operational use of digital systems in administration, finance, admission, examinations and student support.

Documents to prepare and maintain

E-governance policy.
NAD/ABC enrolment records where relevant.
Policy document on digital India and e-governance
dated functional screenshots and transaction evidence.

Who is responsible?

Administrative Office and IT Committee.
Finance/Admission/Examination offices.
Principal.

HEI implementing the policies of Digital India initiatives of GOI and others e-Govt.initiatives are reflected through:

NAD implementation.
ABC implementation
Administration including complaint management and paperless office.
Finance and Accounts though digital systems
Student Admission and Support though e-governance platforms
Digital services in augmenting examination section
Use of Samarth e-governance platform/institutional MIS/ERP or similar platform
Secured IT system
Any other please specify

E-Governance | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Show implementation in each claimed function; buying software does not itself demonstrate effective governance.

Draft weightage / source maximum

10 marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Orientation exercise: use real institutional example and show the primary record, the supporting evidence and the relevant approval or review.

Supporting draft metric 7.8 Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Metric 7.3 | Student and Employee Welfare

15 marks

Explain the approved welfare schemes, eligibility, delivery and beneficiaries—not only policy statements.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Welfare policy and scheme notices.
Health & life Insurance schemes – for faculty/students
Sanctions/disbursements.• Certified beneficiary summaries and feedback.

Who is responsible?

Student Welfare and HR offices.
Finance Officer.
Principal/management.

HEI has Effective Employee Welfare provisions for teaching, non-teaching staff and other beneficiaries which includes following:

Subsidized interest/interest free loans or consideration/concession to employees' dependents in admission
Health & life Insurance schemes – for faculty/students
Support through in-campus infrastructure facilities like in-house crèche, school(s), staff quarters, hospital, and other facilities
Policy on various leaves (such as sabbatical, study leave, etc.) and academic concessions
Safety audit and resultant maintenance for continuous quality living & ambience
Scholarships for needy students, free ships/fee waiver, Medical insurance benefits
Any other please specify – Staff Clubs, Staff Society, etc.

Student and Employee Welfare | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Distinguish schemes available, beneficiaries served and funds spent; protect medical and financial personal information.

Draft weightage / source maximum

15 marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Communicate available insurance, financial assistance, leave and dependent-admission concessions.

Review access to crèche, accommodation, healthcare and other campus facilities.

Follow up safety audits with maintenance and corrective action.

Facilitate scholarships, fee waivers and other approved beneficiary support.

Supporting draft metric 7.5 Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Do teaching and non-teaching staff know how to access welfare schemes? Which welfare needs remain unmet? Are eligibility rules and application procedures clear and equitable?

Metric 7.4/ 7.5 | Grievance Handling Mechanism

5 marks

Explain accessible institutional redressal channels and the roles of relevant committees, distinct from examination-only grievances.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Committee constitution orders and policy.
anonymised annual reports.
restricted case/closure records.

Who is responsible?

Grievance Committee and designated statutory cells.
ICC
Principal.
authorised appeal authority.

Institutional level grievance handling Mechanisms is available and has the redressal cells to resolve grievances including sexual harassment and ragging cases.

Internal complaint committee
Women Anti Sexual-Harassment Cell
Anti Ragging Cell
Counselling Centre
Grievance redressal Cell
Ombudsman
Equal opportunity like SC/ST, OBC, Minority cells, etc.
Specify if, any other Cell

Grievance Handling Mechanism | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Show accessibility, functioning and closure; keep sensitive complaints confidential and publish only appropriate aggregates.

Draft weightage / source maximum

5 marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Do students and employees know where to report different concerns?

How can we make reporting accessible, confidential and free from intimidation?

Are complaints reaching the appropriate authority without unnecessary delays?

Supporting draft metric 7.7 Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Publicise grievance channels, committee contacts and complaint procedures. Conduct awareness sessions on harassment, ragging, discrimination and available support. Clarify the distinct responsibilities of each cell and the appropriate referral routes.

Metric 7.5/7.6 | Quality Assurance System

10 marks

Explain how IQAC, audits, feedback and committee review produce sustained institutional improvement.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Provide the details of composition of IQAC
Annual report of IQAC
Activities conducted through the IQAC
Report of AAA conducted by the IQAC
Action taken report of the minutes of meeting
Short- and long-term goals of the IQAC
Provide the analysis and action taken report of stakeholder satisfaction survey

Who is responsible?

IQAC coordinator and Principal.
criterion/department coordinators.
institutional committees.

The institution has dynamic Internal Quality Assurance Centre/System and its facets are:

IQAS/IQAC/CIQA is aligned with IDP and involves all relevant stakeholder
IQAS/IQAC/CIQA intertwines its activities with various committees of the institution
IQAS/IQAC/CIQA promotes quality with activities such as orientation programmes on institutional quality, seminars, workshops, etc.

Quality Assurance System | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Demonstrate an improvement cycle: review → decision → action → evidence → effectiveness check.

Draft weightage / source maximum

10 marks

Consultation metric 7.3

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

How does our department contribute to IDP-linked quality goals?

How can committees collaborate rather than work in isolation?

What improvements have resulted from IQAC initiatives

Align the annual quality-assurance plan with the Institutional Development Plan (IDP). Involve relevant stakeholders in identifying priorities and reviewing progress. Coordinate quality initiatives across departments and institutional committees. Conduct orientations, seminars and workshops on institutional quality.

Metric 7.6 | / 7.7 Effective Leadership

No draft weightage given

Explain stakeholder representation, delegation, accountable decision-making and inclusion in leadership.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Organogram and delegation orders.
statutory/academic committee minutes.
governance feedback and implementation reports.

Who is responsible?

Principal and Governing Body.
Academic Council.
administrative and academic leaders.

Effective leadership is reflected in various Institutional practicesthrough:

Adequate representation of stake holders in decision-making.
Delegation of administrative powers
Delegation of financial powers
Effective feedback system.
Inclusion and diversity in leadership (e.g. gender/cadre)
National, Inter-National, Inter University collaborations

Effective Leadership

10 marks

Effective Leadership | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Provide examples of delegated decisions implemented and reviewed; do not copy university-only measures into a college report.

Draft weightage / source maximum

10 marks

Consultation metric 7.2

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Involve relevant stakeholders in institutional decision-making.

Clarify delegated administrative and financial powers.

Promote gender and cadre diversity in leadership roles.

Use feedback to guide decisions and strengthen national, international and inter-university collaborations.

Supplementary Metric 7.1 ( For Universities only )• Statutory Compliance

Not established in the DraftSupplementary coverage · not an additional confirmed scored metric

Explain applicable obligations, approvals and public disclosure. The draft excludes this standalone metric for autonomous colleges; compliance duties still remain.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Applicable approvals and compliance register.
required public disclosures.
review and corrective-action records.

Who is responsible?

Principal and management.
administrative/legal office.
relevant statutory committees.

The Acts, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations of the university are formed followingstatutory guidelines and the public disclosure in HEI website includes display of:

Statutes, Regulations and Ordinances are framed as per the Acts and statutory guidelines
Details of the members of different statutory committees and their functions.
Frequency of meetings and Minutes of meetings.
Annual reports.
Curriculum, Academic regulation, calendar, circulars etc. complied/Not complied

Statutory Compliance | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Supplementary orientation topic; do not infer that a metric exclusion removes legal or regulatory duties.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Not established in the Draft

Strategic planning & Discussion

Prepare an institution-specific checklist of applicable requirements.

Verify approvals, renewals, committee constitution and reporting deadlines.

Assign responsibility for each requirement and address compliance gaps.

No rautonomous metric-specific allocation available Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Supplementary / Metric7.8 • Inter University Collaboration

10 MarksSupplementary coverage · not an additional confirmed scored metric

Explain collaboration with other institutions where relevant. The matrix excludes this row for autonomous colleges, but another draft includes broader national/international collaboration.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Valid agreement.
joint-activity records.
participant/output reports and partner confirmation.

Who is responsible?

Principal and collaboration/international relations cell.
HoDs.
partner institution.

The University promotes National and international collaborations to provide exposures to its faculties to students through:

Students exchange
Faculty exchange
Networking and sharing resources
Joint degree and research programmes
Focus consortium
Mentorship programmes
Collaborative research
Industry/Community collaboration, etc

Inter University Collaboration | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Supplementary due to Institution type conflict Distinguish between Deemed to be University and autonomous College

Draft weightage / source maximum

10 Marks

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Which partnerships can meaningfully strengthen teaching, research and student exposure?

How can existing agreements become regular collaborative activities?

What tangible benefits should participants gain?

Facilitate student and faculty exchanges with relevant partner institutions. Develop networking, resource-sharing, consortium and mentorship activities. Promote collaborative research and approved joint academic programmes. .

Supplementary /Metric 7.9• Efforts for Employability

15 marksSupplementary coverage · not an additional confirmed scored metric

Explain preparation for work through life skills, aptitude, communication, career counselling and recruitment opportunities. Support activities are different from actual placement outcomes.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Programme plans, brochures and schedules.
participant lists and completion evidence.
career counselling/job-fair reports and feedback.

Who is responsible?

Career Guidance and Placement Cell.
HoDs and faculty mentors.
employer partners.
E D Club

Efforts for Employability

Life skill workshops
Personality developments

Aptitude development
Communication development

Organizing pooled campus interviews/Job fair/placement drive

Mentoring/ Career counselling for employability

Efforts for Employability | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Report activities and unique beneficiaries; explain verified skill-development evidence without equating attendance to employment.

Draft weightage / source maximum

15 marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Conduct life-skills, personality-development, aptitude and communication workshops.

Arrange résumé clinics, mock interviews and group discussions.

Organise pooled campus interviews, job fairs and placement drives.

Provide mentoring and career counselling.

Supporting draft metric 7.6 Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

What skill gaps affect our students’ readiness for employment? How can departments connect subject knowledge with career opportunities? How will we assess improvement beyond programme attendance

Metric 7.10 Faculty Retention

15. May be included in 15 Metric 2.1

Metric 7.10 Faculty Retention | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Retained baseline faculty ÷ baseline faculty × 100. New hires do not replace leavers in the numerator.

Draft weightage / source maximum

15. May be included in 15 Metric 2.1

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Illustration only: 42 of a baseline 50 teachers remain throughout the defined period: 84% retention.

Eight new recruits do not turn that cohort retention into 100%.

Weightage reference

Institutional Development Plan10 marks.
E-Governance10 marks.
Student and Employee Welfare15 marks.
Grievance Handling Mechanism5 marks.
Quality Assurance System10 marks.
Effective Leadership10 marks.
Statutory CompliancePending confirmation.
Inter University Collaboration10 marks.
Efforts for Employability15 marks
Faculty Retention 15 marks

Faculty preparation checklist

Prepare the evidence

Use approved, dated and signed academic/administrative records.
Prepare a concise explanation supported by the relevant primary records.
State the period, cohort, unit and counting method for numerical claims.
Use source-specified periods only where confirmed; verify the final applicable window.

Coordinate responsibility

Lead coordinator consolidates the criterion; departments supply subject records.
HoDs verify academic claims; relevant offices verify finance, HR, exams and admissions.
Academic Council/Board of Studies approvals support curriculum decisions.
Protect personal data and use anonymised summaries for sensitive records.

Orientation discussion and immediate institutional actions

Questions for faculty and departments

Which existing activity demonstrates this criterion most convincingly?.
Which claim currently lacks an approved document or primary record?.
Where are counts inconsistent between departments and central offices?.
Which improvement needs an academic or administrative decision?.

Actions after the orientation

Nominate criterion and metric-level faculty/office leads.
Prepare a document inventory and identify genuine gaps.
Correct the academic/administrative practice—not just the report wording.
Ask IQAC to confirm the applicable framework, periods and scoring source before submission.