Prof K S Chandrasekar
NIRF (National Institutional Ranking Framework) is a significant step taken by National Board of Accreditation and it focusses on Teaching, Learning and Resources, Research and Professional practice, graduation outcome, Outreach and inclusivity and perception. Ever since this ranking framework was formed in 2016, more institutions started participating in it. From its brochure, its clear that The engagement of HigherEducation Institutions (HEIs) in these rankings has witnessed remarkable growth, escalating from 3,565 in2016 to an impressive 14,163 in 2025. Concurrently, the number of categories and subject domains hasexpanded from four in 2016 to seventeen in 2025, reflecting the evolving landscape of Indian higher education in India. Any institute where three successive batches have passed out will be eligible to participate in it. There are nine categories and eight subject domains where institutions can compete. Normally only two bands are allowed with 1-50 band and 51-100 bands. However, the number of institutions that participated is actually increasing in number. 14,163 institutions participated in 2025 ranking.
Teaching, Learning and resources constitute 30% of the ranking with parameters such as Student Strength (20) Faculty Student Ratio (25) Faculty with Ph.D. (20) Financial Resources &Utilization (20) Online Education (10) Multiple Entry/Exit, Indian Knowledge system and regional languages (5) being part of the first criteria. Publications (35) Citations (35) Patents (15)Research Projects (15) constitute Research and professional practice as it also covers 30% of the overall ranking. Placement & Higher Studies (40), University examinations (15), Median Salary (25) and Ph.D. students (20) constitute the graduation outcome with 20% of the overall ranking. Region Diversity (30) Women Diversity (30) economically and socially Challenged Students (20) Physically Challenged Students (20) constitute the evaluation for outreach and inclusivity for 10% of the ranking. Finally perception constitute about 10% which includes Peer Perception: Academic Peers and Employers (100).
NIRF is almost in the same vein as that of NBA or NAAC accreditation but it ensures ranking of the institutions unlike the other two. NIRF conducts consultative committee meetings every year before proposing their updated ranking framework and the present team is aware of inclusion of sustainable development goals into the evaluation. This year NIRF understood to penalize the institutions which has cloned journal articles. There are many institutions that provide false data. They would also be penalized. Those who have already participated and if there is a huge gap in the present filing also, there will be penalties. ThePeer Perception parameter, which accounts for 10% of the ranking’s weight, is considered highly subjective. This parameter involves asking experts and companies about their opinion of an institution. Established institutions like BITS often receive higher ratings due to their existing brand value. The chance of a remote state university which might be performing well need not be given the same preference.The data submitted by institutions to NIRF is self-declared, and the verification process is not perfect. Mostly what data is submitted by the institution is considered excepting the research details as it can be assessed separately. Most of the state universities by default give more weightage to the outreach and inclusivity but it carries only about 10% weightage. If we take colleges where faculty are appointed in J&K and other states, there is no need for Ph.D. and can be acquired over time. This creates a huge gap in the faculty with Ph.D. It is clear that institutions like IITs, IIMs and other national repute institutions will have more faculty with Ph.D., smaller colleges may not be. Considering the fact that many colleges are focused on teaching, the research component takes a back seat. Here again this difficulty lies.
One thing is clear, GDC Billawar cannot be considered an opponent to IIT Jammu. There is a need for level playing grounds. IITs should compete with BRIC nation institutions and for which NIRF can be made more global as like QS. Top 10 universities so far in the list should also compete globally and allow rest of the institutions and universities to compete for the rest of the places. There is at least a requirement of 500 rankings considering the magnitude of the higher education in India. For subject specifics, there can be only 100 or 50 rankings but for overall general colleges, it can be increased to 500. In the university rankings, University of Kashmir and University of Jammu are in the top 100 from J&K apart from the five others in subject’s category. There is a need to empower other universities on the areas where they lack like Research output, professional practices, and faculty with Ph.D. to enable them to compete to be on the top ranking. The placement scenario in J&K needs more thrust in order to ensure that the institutions are able to find their place in the ranking framework. Those who have already applied for the new NAAC criteria based evaluation will be in a better framework to participate in the NIRF. Considering the fact that more colleges and universities in J&K needs to be involved in this process, sooner there is a likelihood of them getting both NAAC grading and also figure in the NIRF. For this, NBA needs to increase the number of those being qualified from the present one so that there will be more inclusivity. Otherwise, those institutions that are trying to perform well from J&K will not be able to hog the limelight.
(The author is Vice Chancellor, Cluster University of Jammu)