Apex University Skill Centre
Dual AB · Higher Education Institution (HEI) · Healthcare & Allied · Telangana
REWS risk band
L · Low
Composite score 24.0
Letter grade
B66.2
Compliant / Satisfactory
Escalation
Routine
0red flag(s)
Renewal readiness
READY – Standard Renewal
Decision matrix actions
Auto-matched from risk band and letter grade
Regulator (NCVET)
Immediate oversight actions
- 1Move to quarterly desk review + half-yearly audit (per REWS cadence).
- 2Require submission of Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) within 30 days.
- 3Conditional renewal – tie renewal to QIP milestone closure.
- 4Capacity-building session for identified gap areas (RFP Cl.3.1e).
- 5Flag for inclusion in next risk-based surprise-audit cycle.
Awarding Body
Required response & remediation
- 1Submit QIP with root-cause analysis and timelines within stipulated period.
- 2Attend NCVET capacity-building/TOT sessions.
- 3Close specific red/amber indicators (e.g. reporting delays, committee functionality) and evidence closure.
- 4Nominate a single point of contact for QIP tracking.
Global TVET precedent
Ofqual 'monitoring' category with improvement plan; ASQA 'conditions on registration'; QCTO probationary accreditation.
Risk narrative
Plain-English explanation with indicator citations
AB-07 Apex University Skill Centre carries a Low REWS risk band (composite risk score 24.0) and letter grade B (Compliant / Satisfactory) after a 0-point risk-linked deduction from a weighted domain score of 66.2. No red flags are present; amber indicators to watch include: G1 (Leadership changes (Chairperson/CEO) in last 12 months: value 1 count; threshold green ≤ 0, amber ≤ 1 → Amber); F2 (YoY revenue growth: value 4 %; threshold green ≥ 5, amber ≥ -10 → Amber); F3 (Maximum statutory/vendor payment delay: value 40 days; threshold green ≤ 30, amber ≤ 90 → Amber). Recommended posture: ROUTINE. Renewal readiness: READY – Standard Renewal. Monitoring cadence: Annual review (standard cycle).
Category health scores
Six REWS categories feeding the composite risk score
Governance Risk
86.7
Weight 15%
Financial Risk
73.3
Weight 20%
Assessment Risk
86.7
Weight 20%
Technology Risk
73.3
Weight 10%
Compliance Risk
73.3
Weight 20%
Training & Outcome Risk
60.0
Weight 15%
Indicator RAG breakdown
Value vs Green / Amber thresholds — Red if past Amber
| Code | Indicator | Value | Green | Amber | Score | RAG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Leadership changes (Chairperson/CEO) in last 12 monthsGovernance Risk · Lower · count | 1 | 0 | 1 | 60 | Amber |
| G2 | Statutory committees non-functional (Board/Audit/Grievance)Governance Risk · Lower · count | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Green |
| G3 | Unresolved conflict-of-interest cases reportedGovernance Risk · Lower · count | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Green |
| F1 | Net worthFinancial Risk · Higher · Rs Lakh | 95 | 50 | 0 | 100 | Green |
| F2 | YoY revenue growthFinancial Risk · Higher · % | 4 | 5 | -10 | 60 | Amber |
| F3 | Maximum statutory/vendor payment delayFinancial Risk · Lower · days | 40 | 30 | 90 | 60 | Amber |
| A1 | Pass-rate deviation from national benchmark (abs.)Assessment Risk · Lower · pp | 9 | 10 | 20 | 100 | Green |
| A2 | Batches with missing assessment evidenceAssessment Risk · Lower · % sampled | 2 | 2 | 5 | 100 | Green |
| A3 | Reassessment / appeal rateAssessment Risk · Lower · % | 4 | 3 | 7 | 60 | Amber |
| T1 | Data security incidentsTechnology Risk · Lower · count/yr | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Green |
| T2 | Missing mandatory integrations (Kaushal Verse/SIDH/ABC)Technology Risk · Lower · count | 1 | 0 | 1 | 60 | Amber |
| T3 | System downtime (assessment/LMS platform)Technology Risk · Lower · hrs/qtr | 5 | 4 | 12 | 60 | Amber |
| C1 | MIS/data non-submission instancesCompliance Risk · Lower · count/yr | 1 | 0 | 2 | 60 | Amber |
| C2 | Average delay in regulatory reportingCompliance Risk · Lower · days | 10 | 7 | 20 | 60 | Amber |
| C3 | Regulatory violations / show-cause noticesCompliance Risk · Lower · count/yr | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100 | Green |
| L1 | Learner dropout rateTraining & Outcome Risk · Lower · % | 11 | 10 | 20 | 60 | Amber |
| L2 | Placement / employment rateTraining & Outcome Risk · Higher · % | 48 | 50 | 30 | 60 | Amber |
| L3 | Trainer vacancy rateTraining & Outcome Risk · Lower · % | 12 | 10 | 25 | 60 | Amber |
Grading domain breakdown
Weighted domain scores before risk-linked deduction
| Domain | Raw (0–100) | Weight | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 Governance & Institutional Capacity | 74.0 | 10% | 7.4 |
| D2 Financial Sustainability | 65.0 | 10% | 6.5 |
| D3 Qualification Design & Curriculum (QP-NOS alignment) | 72.0 | 10% | 7.2 |
| D4 Training Delivery & Trainer Quality | 68.0 | 15% | 10.2 |
| D5 Assessment Quality & Integrity | 68.0 | 15% | 10.2 |
| D6 Industry Engagement & Learner Outcomes | 62.0 | 15% | 9.3 |
| D7 Technology & Innovation Enablement | 58.0 | 10% | 5.8 |
| D8 Future Planning, Grievance Redressal & Governance Response | 64.0 | 15% | 9.6 |