PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLICY FOR TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING

STAFF

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLICY FOR TEACHING STAFF:

The performance appraisal (PA) is one of the performance management tool that is used to
measure the productivity of academic employees in different contexts.
In Sri Manakula Vinayagar Engineering College, the performance appraisal formats are
developed for both teaching and non-teaching staff.

Performance appraisal for teaching staff:

The faculty appraisal is undertaken with following objectives:
• To assist teachers in their professional development and career planning.
• To assist teachers to reflect their potential and to carry out their duties more effectively
• To provide judgment to support promotions, demotions, transfers, confirmation or termination.
• To provide feedback to staff about their behaviour, attitudes, skills or subject expertise
• To recognise the achievements of teachers and help them to identify ways of improving their
knowledge, skills, attitudes and ultimately performance.
• To improve the quality of education for students. In short, it would be utilized as a tool to
facilitate growth, development, efficiency and effectiveness of the teaching-learning process in the
institution.

The process of faculty appraisal:

The process of appraisal would be scheduled towards the end of the academic year. This is to enable
the faculty to reflect their performance across the two semesters of the academic year. Additionally, the
analysis would provide a pathway for the institution to take necessary measures to incentivize or bring
in supportive processes to enhance the performance of the faculty.

The process of appraisal comprises of three parts:

A. Self-appraisal format to be filled by every faculty
B. Appraisal by HoD and Academic Performance Evaluation Committee: This would involve a
review of the self-appraisal documents submitted by the faculty.

A. SELF APPRAISAL FORMAT:

The self-appraisal format developed has both quantitative and qualitative. The self- appraisal format
encompasses the following domains of skills
1. General Information
2. Part-A: Teaching - Learning and Evaluation-Related Aspects, this section has 9 items (450 Points)
3. Part-B: Research, Development and Extension Activities, this section has 11 items (450 Points)
4. Part-C: Administrative and Extra-Curricular Activities, this section has 3 items (Maximum of 100
Points)
 To make the process of appraisal more objective, detailed grade descriptors have been provided
for every item under each section. The faculty are given the same along with the self-appraisal format to
be filled. The maximum score a teacher can arrive is 1000.
A format of the same is attached in the Appendix 1.

General guidelines for faculty when undertaking the responsibility of self-appraisal:

1. Faculty are expected to highlight their accomplishments and recollect milestones in their
Professional development across the academic year.
2. Faculty are expected to be professional when writing self-assessments.
3. Faculty have to undertake the responsibility of self-appraisal seriously. They are expected to work
Individually and not be influenced by any colleague or peers during the process.
4. The HoD would assure the confidentiality of the process.

NOTE: All appraisal forms are submitted by the faculty to the Head of the Institution through
HoD and will be in the custody of Head of the Institution.

B. APPRAISAL BY HoD AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION COMMITTEE:

The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee follows exactly the same format as the above for
appraisal. In fact, to make it more concise, the self-appraisal format also has a column to be filled by the
HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee which runs parallel to the column where the faculty scores
are entered. (Refer Appendix 1)
The maximum score a teacher be given by the HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee is 1000.

General guidelines for HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee when undertaking the
responsibility of appraisal of faculty:
1. The assessor has to ensure that the focus is on the person without any prejudice.
2. The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee should focus on job performance and related
factors.
3. The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee is expected to review thoroughly the job
requirements, the teacher’s strengths, accomplishments and areas of improvement.
4. The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the process
strictly.
5. The information will be utilized for professional development only.

ANALYSIS OF APPRAISAL AND CONSOLIDATION:

1. Self-appraisal by teachers:
• The total score given by the faculty is calculated as per the rating scale.
• The actual milestones reached/achievements of the teacher in that academic year are identified and
noted.
2. Appraisal by HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee:
• The total score received by the faculty and independent assessment by the HoD and Performance
Evaluation Committee is calculated
• The actual milestones reached/achievements of the teacher in that academic year are identified and
noted by the HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee
• The areas of improvement are identified.
 • The discrepancy in the scores (if present) are identified and the possible reasons for the same are
reflected and noted by the HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee.
•The areas of improvement are identified.

Based on these two scores a detailed analysis is undertaken on the performance of each faculty
during the said academic year. The strengths, responsibilities undertaken, achievements are
consolidated and identified. Additionally, the areas of improvement are listed along with the
challenges in professional skills/interpersonal skills are noted.

The progress based on the previous year’s feedback is also reviewed. (From both perspectives- a positive
growth or decline)

COMMUNICATING THE ANALYSIS OF APPRAISAL

• After a consolidation of the appraisal across academic year has been undertaken, the faculty would
be invited for an individualized meeting to discuss the same.
• The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee is expected to set aside adequate block of
uninterrupted time to permit a full and complete discussion.
• The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee is expected to give the faculty adequate advance
notice so that he /she can prepare for the discussion.
• The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee needs to be prepared to cite observations for
each point discussed.
• The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee is expected to acknowledge and appreciate
achievements, encourage and motivate the faculty to further improve or convey the implications of
poor performances as the case may be.
• The possible course of actions both positive and negative has to be conveyed clearly to the faculty.
• Both the HoD / Performance Evaluation Committee and the Faculty are expected to maintain
professional etiquettes and behaviours during the course of the meeting.
• A brief record of the discussion points would be maintained with appropriate signatures.

COMMUNICATING AND REPORTING TO THE HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION AND

MANAGEMENT:

• The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee shall make a report of the appraisal highlight
with appropriate evidences:
 Faculty who has demonstrated excellence in teaching practices, have taken responsibilities
beyond the scope of their regular work and shown their commitment to the growth of the
institution.
 Faculty who has the capacity to improve their skills and competencies and the pathways
suggested to them for the same.
 Faculty who has underperformed and not shown any indication of improvement or who
have not demonstrated the professional etiquettes across the academic year
• The HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee is expected to maintain appropriate documents
connected to the same and it will be in the custody of the office/ Head of the Institution.
• The Head of the Institution and management would take necessary action as per the policy of the
institution based on the report submitted by HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee.
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLICY FOR NON-TEACHING STAFF

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL POLICY FOR NON-TEACHING STAFF:

The performance appraisal (PA) is one of the performance management tool that is used to
measure the productivity of academic employees in different contexts.
In Sri Manakula Vinayagar Engineering College, the performance appraisal formats are
developed for both teaching and non-teaching staff.

Performance appraisal for non-teaching staff

The employee appraisal is undertaken with following objectives:
• To assist employees to reflect about their potential and to carry out their duties more effectively
• To provide judgment to support promotions, demotions, transfers, confirmation or termination.
• To provide feedback to staff about their behaviour, attitudes, skills or subject-expertise
• To recognise the achievements of employees and help them to identify ways of improving their
knowledge, skills, attitudes and ultimately performance.
• To assist employees in their professional development and career planning.

In short, it would be utilized as a tool to facilitate growth, development, efficiency and effectiveness of
the administration and facility management process in the institution.
The process of appraisal:
The process of appraisal would be scheduled towards the end of the academic year.
The process of appraisal comprises of two parts:
A. Self-appraisal format to be filled by every non-teaching faculty
The format encompasses the following sections
1. General Information and list of responsibilities undertaken
2. Rating scale on the following: (Select items are differentiated for office employees and
attenders/housekeeping staff as the nature of work differs. The directions for choice of
questions are provided in the form itself)
a. Professional Competence: This section has 5 items to be rated on a scale of 4. (Maximum 20)
b. Quality of work: This section has 4 items to be rated on a scale of 4. (Maximum 16)
c. Personal Characteristics: This section has 3 items to be rated on a scale of 4. (Maximum 12)
3. A descriptive section to write any special contribution by the staff during the period. (Maximum 2
points)
The rating scale ranges from 1 to 4 as follows
• 1 is poor
• 2 is satisfactory
• 3 is good
• 4 is Excellent
The maximum score a staff can arrive at is 50. A format of the same is attached in the Appendix 2.
B. Appraisal by HoD / Section Incharge:
The format of appraisal utilized by the HoD/Section Incharge is exactly the same as the self-appraisal
format. This would be filled by the HoD/Section Incharge with consultation of senior employees.
• The HoD/Section Incharge would review a self-appraisal document submitted by the non-teaching
faculty.
• The HoD/Section Incharge is expected to rate their performances and generate a report.
 • The HoD/Section may undertake this task in consultation with senior employee
• The HoD/Section is also expected to facilitate an individualized meeting with each of the non-
teaching staff to communicate an appraisal of their performances and the action undertaken.
• This is to enable the employees to reflect their performance across the previous academic year.
• Additionally, the analysis would provide a pathway for the institution to take necessary measures to
incentivize or bring in supportive processes to enhance the performance of the staff.

General guidelines for HoD / Section Incharge when undertaking the responsibility of appraisal of
faculty:
1. The assessor has to ensure that the focus is on the person without any prejudice.
2. The HoD/Section Incharge should focus on job performance and related factors.
3. The HoD/Section Incharge is expected to review thoroughly the job requirements, the individual’s
strengths, accomplishments and areas of improvement.
4. The information will be utilized for professional development only.
5. The HoD/Section Incharge would maintain the confidentiality of the process.
NOTE: All appraisal forms will be in the custody of the Head of the Institution.

ANALYSIS OF APPRAISAL:
• The total score received by the staff is computed by adding the scores in self-appraisal and the scores
from the independent assessment by the HoD/Section Incharge.
• Appropriate grades would be given based on the band descriptor provided.
• The strengths, responsibilities undertaken, achievements are consolidated and identified.
• Additionally, the areas of improvement are listed along with the challenges in professional
skills/interpersonal skills are noted.
• The progress based on the previous year’s feedback is also reviewed. (from both perspectives- a
positive growth or decline)

COMMUNICATING THE ANALYSIS OF APPRAISAL

• After a consolidation of the appraisal across academic year has been undertaken, the staff would be
invited for an individualized meeting to discuss the same.
• The HoD/Section Incharge is expected to set aside adequate block of uninterrupted time to permit
a full and complete discussion.
• The HoD/Section Incharge is expected to give the faculty adequate advance notice so that he /she
can prepare for the discussion.
• The HoD/Section Incharge needs to be prepared to cite observations for each point discussed.
• The HoD/Section Incharge is expected to acknowledge and appreciate achievements, encourage
and motivate the staff to further improve or convey the implications of poor performances as the
case may be.
• The possible course of actions both positive and negative has to be conveyed clearly to the staff.
• Both the HoD/Section Incharge and the staff are expected to maintain professional etiquettes and
behaviours during the course of the meeting.
• A brief record of the discussion points would be maintained with appropriate signatures.

COMMUNICATING AND REPORTING TO THE HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION AND

MANAGEMENT:
• The HoD/Section Incharge shall make a report of the appraisal highlight with appropriate
evidences:
 Employees who have demonstrated excellence in their work output, have taken
responsibilities beyond the scope of their regular work and shown their commitment to the
growth of the institution.
 Employees who have the capacity to improve their skills and competencies and the
pathways suggested to them for the same.
 Staff who have underperformed and not shown any indication of improvement or who have
not demonstrated the professional etiquettes across the academic year
• The HoD/Section Incharge is expected to maintain appropriate documents connected to the same
and it will be in the custody of the office/ Head of the Institution.
• The Head of the Institution and management would take necessary action as per the policy of the
institution based on the report submitted by HoD and Performance Evaluation Committee.
 Appendix – 1

SELF–APPRAISAL FORM FOR FACULTY (A.Y: 2023-24)

(The details are required from 1stJuly 2023 to 30th June 2024)

Name of the Department :

Name of the Faculty :
Present Designation :
D.O.B & Age :
Date of Joining in SMVEC :
Mobile No. :
Email ID :
Gross Salary (Rs.) :

PART-A
TEACHING- LEARNING & EVALUATION-RELATED ASPECTS (450 Points)

A.1 Educational Qualifications ((Max. 20 Points)

(Ph.D – 20 points, PG – 10 points)

Score Score
Branch/ Year of
Degree College University % given by given
Specialization completion
staff by HoD

A.2 Experience Details (Chronological Order only) ((Max. 15 Points)

(If Experience >15 years and above – 15 marks, Experience 10 years to 15 years – 10
marks , Experience 5 years to 10 years – 5 marks)
Position Period Exp. in Score Score
S.No. Institution/Industry
held From To Years given given by
by HoD

Total
A.3 Student Feedback on Teacher Performance (Max. 75 Points)
(Points equal the Percentage of feedback)

Average Score Score given

Programme/ Semester Course Feedback
Feedback given by by HoD
Dept staff
3.5
3.5
3.5 75
3.5
3.5
Feedback collected from the students on the subjects for both semesters in QCM meeting.
Total number of 4’s, 3’s, 2’s, 1’s in each subject and class
Out of 4 , >3.5 - 75 Points
>3 to < 3.5 60 Points
>2.5 to < 3 - 50 Points
<2.5 - 35 Points

A.4 Result Analysis (Max. 100 Points)

(Points equal the Result Percentage)

Average Score Score

Program/Dept. Semester Course Result
Result given by given by
staff HoD

A.5 Online Certification Courses (NPTEL etc..) (Max.: 75 points)

(Necessary proofs to be
enclosed) Allocation of Points
per Course :
(Toppers: 75 points; Elite+Gold: 65 points; Elite+Silver: 55 points; Elite: 45 points
& Successfully completed: 35 points)

Score
Course Awarding Score Score given
Grade given
Title Duration Institution obtained by staff
by HoD

A.6 FDPs/Training Activities/ STTPs/ Symposia/Conferences/Workshops Attended

(Max.: 75 points)
(Necessary proofs to be
enclosed) Allocation of points:
(For IITs/NITs/Universities: 1 day: 25 points, 2 to 5 days: 50 points, >5 days: 75 points,

For other institutions, 60% of the score shall be considered including in-
house programmes, i.e. 1 day: 15 points, 2 to 5 days: 30 points, >5 days: 45
points)

Title of the Score Score

Duration Organized by Score
programme given by given by
staff HoD

A.7 FDPs/Training Activities/ STTPs/Symposia/Conferences/Workshops Conducted

as Convener/Co-ordinator etc. (Max.: 20 points)
(Necessary proofs to be enclosed)
(Govt. sponsored programme: 20 points, Self-sustained programme: 10 points)

Score Score
Title of the programme Duration Acted as Score
given by given by
staff HoD

A.8 Additional Significant achievements (Max.: 50 Points)

(Necessary proofs for each category to be enclosed)

Max. Score Score

Item
Score given by given by
staff HoD
Remedial classes/Bridge courses/Study Hours in
i. 15
Hostels and Technical Trainings (GATE etc.)
ii. Usage of MOODLEs /developing blog 15
Innovation/Prototype Developed/New Experiments
iii. 20
Designed for Lab

A.9 Books/Chapters Published (Max.:20 points)

(First page of the book/chapter to be enclosed)
(Books: International: 20 Points, National: 15 points, Chapter:10 points)

Title of the Score Score

Authors Publisher Score
book/chapter given by given by
staff HoD
 PART-B
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION ACTIVITIES (450 Points)

Cut-off points: (Engineering/MBA-- Professor: 225 points, Associate Professor: 175 points,
Assistant Professor: 100 points), (FED-- Professor: 150 points, Associate Professor: 100 points,
Assistant Professor: 75 points)

B.1 Research Guidance (Max.: 50 points)

(Necessary proofs to be enclosed)
(Ph.D.: 50 Points per scholar, PG: 25 points per student, UG- each project batch: 25 for
‘A’ grade project and 20 for other grade projects)

No. of scholars/ Score Score

Category Score
No. of batches given by given by
staff HoD
Ph.D.
PG/UG

B.2 Sponsored Research Projects/Grants (Max.: 50 points)

(Sanctioned letter to be enclosed)
(Projects worth1 to 5 Lakhs: 15 Points, 5 to 10 Lakhs: 25 Points, > 10 Lakhs: 50 points)
(Other Grants:1 to 2 Lakhs: 10 Points, 2 to 3 Lakhs: 15 Points, >3 Lakhs: 25
points) Projects under review: 20 points

Score
Sanctioned Score given
Category Agency
Amount in INR given by by HoD
staff

B.3 Consultancy (Max.: 25 points)

(Necessary proofs to be enclosed)
(Sanctioned amount ≥ 5 Lakhs: 25 points, 1 to 5 Lakhs: 20 points

Score Score
Category Agency Details Amount in INR
given by given by
staff HoD

B.4 Patents Published/Awarded (Max: 25 points)

(Necessary proofs to be enclosed)
(Patent awarded: 25 points, Patent published: 20 points)

Title of the Status Score Score

File Number Score
patent (published/awarded) given by given by
staff HoD

B.5 Research Publications (Max.: 150 points)

(Front page of publication to be enclosed) (SCI journal: 100 points, SCOPUS: 50 points,
UGC care – 25 points, Others – 10 points)
Score Score
SCI/Scopus / Title of the Publication Score
 given by given by
UGC care /
staff HoD
Others

B.6 Linkages/ Collaborations with Premiere Institution (Max.: 25

points) (Collaborative Publication, Faculty Exchange Programmes etc.)

Nature of Score Score

Details Score
Linkage given by given by
staff HoD

B.7 Member/Reviewer in Editorial Boards of Referred Journals (Max.:25 points)

(Reviewer for SCI journal: 25 points, SCOPUS journal: 15 Points, Member of organizing
committees in International/ National conferences etc.: 15 points)

Name of the Score Score

Publisher/Committee Score
journal/conference given by given by
staff HoD

B.8 Award/Honour/Fellowships/Recognitions (Max.: 25 points)

(The necessary proofs to be enclosed)

Score Score
Award/Honour Details of Awarding Agency
given by given by
staff HoD

B.9 Resource Person/Invited Speaker/Conference Chair/Judge (Max.: 25 points)

(The necessary proofs to be enclosed)

Score Score
Topic Description Name of organization
given by given by
staff HoD

B.10 Memberships in Professional Societies/Bodies etc. (Max.: 25 points)

(The necessary proofs to be enclosed)

Name of the Professional Membership Score Score

Category
Society/Body number given by given by
staff HoD

B.11 Papers Presented in Conferences (Max.: 25 points)

(Necessary proofs to be enclosed)
 (International conference abroad: 25 points, India: 15 points, National: 10 points)

Name of the
Title of the Organized Invited/Oral/ Score Score
Conference Score
Paper by poster given by given by
and dates
staff HoD

PART-C
ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES (Maximum of 100 Points)

Score given
Mention the by staff Score
Max. Score
Category of Administrative Work Administrati y= (100 . X) given
points (X)
ve Work / 225 by HoD

Administrative Assignments
C.1 (Dean, IQAC Co-ordinator, 100
CoE, HOD, Professor-In-
charge etc.)
Central Committee Member/Co-
ordinator/In-charge
(NAAC, NBA, NIRF, ISO,
NPTEL,
C.2 R&D, Exam Cell, Alumni, Faculty 75
Club, Bus In-charge, Discipline,
Sports, NSS, NCC, Yoga, Women’s
Grievance Cell, Anti Ragging,
Professional Bodies,
Skill
development, Incubation, etc)
Departmental

Committee Member/Co-
ordinator/In-charge (BOS, PAC,
DAC, CRC, CCC, MCC,
Academic Audit, Class teacher,
C.3 Mentor, Research Group Co- 50
ordinator, Internships, Lab In-
charge, Projects, Industrial visits,
NAAC, NBA, ISO, NPTEL,
R&D, Exam
Cell, Alumni, Faculty Club,
Discipline, Sports, NSS, NCC,
Yoga, Women’s Grievance Cell,
Anti Ragging, Professional Bodies,
Skill development, Incubation, etc)
Note: Any other claim in support of self-appraisal may also be submitted
(Briefly list out the involvement / contribution in developing the Department and institution – enclose the
relevant proofs)

Signature of the Faculty Member Signature of HOD

 Summary of Self-Appraisal Score (A.Y: 2023-24)
Name of the Faculty : Department:
Designation :
Category Max. Score Score
Score given by given by
staff HoD
Teaching, Learning and Evaluation Related Activities
A.1 Educational Qualifications 20
A.2 Experience Details 15
A.3 Student Feedback on Teacher Performance 75
Result Analysis 100
A.4
Online Certification Courses (NPTEL etc.) 75
Part-A A.5
A.6 FDPs/Training Activities/ STTPs/Workshops
75
Attended
A.7 FDPs/Training Activities/ STTPs/Workshops
20
conducted as a Convener/Co-ordinator etc.
A.8 Additional Significant Expertise 50
A.9 Books/Chapters Published 20
Total Score (Part-A) 450
Research, Development and Extension Activities
B.1 Research Guidance 50
B.2 Sponsored Research Projects/Grants 50
B.3 Consultancy 25
B.4 Patents Published/Awarded 25
B.5 Research Publications 150
B.6 Linkages/ Collaborations with Premiere Institution 25
Part-B
Member/Reviewer in Editorial Boards of
B.7 25
Referred Journals
B.8 Awards/Honours/Fellowships/Recognitions 25
Resource Person/Invited Speaker/Conference
B.9 25
Chair/Judge
B.10 Memberships in Professional Societies/Bodies etc. 25
B.11 Papers Presented in Conferences 25
Total Score (Part-B) 450
Administrative and Extra Curricular Activities
C.1 Administrative Assignments 100
Part-C C.2 Central Committee Member/Co-ordinator/ In-charge 75
C.3 Departmental Committee Member/ Co-ordinator/ In- 50
charge
Total Score (Part-C) 100
Total Score (Part-A + Part-B + Part-C) 1000

Signature of Faculty Signature of HoD

Signatures of APEC Members Signature of Dean Academics Signature of Head of the Institution
1.
2.
3.

*Academic Performance Evaluation Committee (APEC)

 Appendix - 2

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF NON – TEACHING STAFF

Year of Appraisal: 2023-2024

Name of the Department / Section :

Name of the Faculty :

Present Designation :

D.O.B & Age :

Qualification :

Date of Joining in SMVEC :

Mobile No. :

Email ID :

Gross Salary (Rs.) :

Details of current responsibilities:

Any other contribution made by the

employee:
:

Date: Signature of the Staff:

 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF NON – TEACHING STAFF

NAME
DESIGNATION
DEPARTMENT / SECTION
Appraisal Point: 4- Excellent, 3-Good, 2-Satisfactory,
1-Poor
APPRAISAL CATEGORY Appraisal by Appraisal by HoD /
Non – Teaching Section Incharge
Staff Points Total Points
1. PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE (Maximum 20 Points)
** Knowledge of rules, regulation and procedure

Ability to organize work and carry it out

Ability and willingness to take up additional

load in times of exigencies
Ability to learn new duties
**Capacity to supervise
*Response to instructions and guidance of
supervisor
*Response to feedback of supervisor
2. QUALITY OF WORK (Maximum 16 Points)
**Ability to maintain Files/ Records
Accuracy & Speed of work
Neatness & tidiness of work
Completion of work on schedule
*Execution of work with team spirit
3. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Maximum 12 Points)
Regularity
Punctuality
Interaction with colleagues and students

4. SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE

STAFF DURING THE PERIOD
(Maximum 2 Points)

GRAND TOTAL
Grading based on Points: 40 and above – Excellent, 35-39 – Good, 26 -34 – Satisfactory, below 25 - Poor

GRADE
* * Not applicable for Attenders and Housekeeping Staff
* Applicable for Attenders and Housekeeping Staff

HoD / Section Incharge Head of the Institution