INDIA

TECHNICAL EDUCATION QUALITY

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT II (TEQIP-II)

Fifth Joint Review Mission

July 6 - August 7, 2015

Aide Memoire

I. INTRODUCTION
1. The World Bank and Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) team carried

out the 5th Joint Review Mission (JRM) from July 6-17, 2015.1The World Bank
team2would like to extend its gratitude to Ms. Tripti Gurha, Director (MHRD) for her
guidance and advice throughout the mission and to officials at National Project
Implementation Unit (NPIU) for overall coordination of the JRM, especially in the
preparation of various background materials, organization of workshops (with Mentors
and Performance Auditors, institutions, (State Project Facilitation Units (SPFUs), IIMs
and IITs), field visits, informative presentations and proactive participation in
discussions.

2.

The objectives of the JRM were to review the overall progress of the project with MHRD,
NPIU, SPFUs and other implementing partners. The mission reviewed actions taken by
the project as proposed in the Implementation Support Mission held in December 2014.
The mission visited three institutions each in the states of Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttar
Pradesh, and West Bengal. Meetings were also held with IITs and IIMs to evaluate the
impact of their work on pedagogical and management training, respectively. Meetings
were held with a group of Mentors and Performance Auditors to review the progress of
their work. The team also met with officials in the All India Council of Technical
Education to examine quality-related aspects in engineering education, as well as with the
National Board of Accreditation (NBA) to seek advice on expediting the accreditation
process for TEQIP institutes. Finally, a meeting was held with the Principal Secretaries
Technical Education (or representatives), Technical Education of states participating in
TEQIP II. Details on persons met and institutes visited are in Annex 1 and state visit
reports are in Annex 4.

3.

In a Tripartite Project Pipeline Review held on July 22, 2015, chaired by the Department
of Economic Affairs (DEA), the Joint Secretary, DEA, Mr Raj Kumar, advised the
MHRD and the World Bank to consider including more institutes/activities under TEQIP
II so that at least 90 percent of project funds were committed prior to approval of a new
request for financial assistance. The Joint Secretary agreed that if needed, TEQIP IIs
closure could be extended to allow institutes to complete activities (the World Bank
Country Director also agreed to such a necessary extension). Mr. Kumar also advised
considering a modality whereby activities initiated under TEQIP II could continue
seamlessly into an additional phase of the project, which might take the form of
additional financing or a new project (TEQIP III). Formal minutes of the meeting are
awaited. In the interim, the World Bank team used the period scheduled for the TEQIP III
preparation mission (August 3-7, 2015) to meet with MHRD, NPIU and State Principal
Secretaries to consider mechanisms for strengthening and expanding TEQIP IIs reach, as
well as accelerating fund use.

As discussed in paragraph 3, the period from July 23-Aug 7, 2015 was also used to review TEQIP II and
explore possibilities for strengthening the Project.
2
Toby Linden (TTL), Lead Education Specialist; Tara Beteille (co-TTL), Economist; Kurt Larsen, Lead
Education Specialist; Francisco Marmalejo, Lead Education Specialist; Karthika Radhakrishnan-Nair,
Operations Analyst; Rudraksh Mitra, Consultant and Ritu Sharma, Program Assistant.

Page2

II. KEY PROJECT DATA

Project Data

Details

Current Ratings

Board Approval

03/18/2010

Effectiveness

08/6/2010

Closing date (Revised)

Original Credit amount
Revised Credit amount
Amount disbursed
(July 19, 2015)
% Disbursed
(July 19, 2015)
Age of the Project

SDR 186.4mmm
SDR 134.6m
SDR 68.5 m

US$ 259.3 m
US$ 187 m
US$ 95.3 m

51

Last

Now

Development Objectives

Implementation Progress

MS

Project Management
Procurement
Financial Management
Counterpart Funding

MS
MS
MS
MS

S
MS
MS
MS

Monitoring and
Evaluation

5.3 years

Ratings: HS=Highly Satisfactory; S=Satisfactory; MS= Moderately Satisfactory; MU= Moderately Unsatisfactory;
U=Unsatisfactory; HU=Highly Unsatisfactory; NA=Not Applicable; NR=Not Rated.
Note: fluctuation in exchange rate between SDR and USD means USD figures may vary from last JRM.

III. OVERALL FINDINGS

4. The progress against the Project Development Objective (PDO) is rated as Satisfactory as

all PDO indicators are on track to be achieved, with one exception (related to proportion
of participating institutions from lagging states).
5. The mission recommends the following change in ratings: Implementation (MS to S) and

Project Management (MS to S). With regard to implementation, activities at the

institutional level are proceeding well, with an increasing number of institutions meeting
the bar for being a well-performing institute. While 64 institutions met the bar set in the
3rd JRM, 162 institutions have met 8 or 9 of the indicators set in the 4th JRM. Systemlevel activities (IIMs, QEEE and Good Governance and MIS) are also proceeding
satisfactorily. In a meeting with the Chairman, NBA, Dr Nassa, the JRM team was
informed that, in general, TEQIP institutes receive a higher score on NBAs accreditation
than other institutes. This is important both because NBA accreditation is difficult to
achieve and because accreditation is voluntary. It indicates that TEQIP institutes have the
will and the confidence to go through the accreditation process to signal their quality.
Additionally, field visits as well as meetings held during the JRM indicate that TEQIP has
built a strong brand name for itself. All these factors suggest implementation of the
project is satisfactory. In terms of Project Management, MHRD and the NPIU have
moved ahead by linking funding to performance at the institute-level by (i) weeding out
poor-performing institutes from the project; and (ii) providing well-performing institutes
additional resources. Both processes are difficult and required considerable effort and
perseverance on the part of MHRD and NPIU. The World Bank team would like to
congratulate MHRD and NPIU for taking difficult decisions in their endeavour to keep
quality and accountability at the forefront of the project.
6. Fund flow delays, unfortunately, continue, with some states taking a long time to release

funds to institutions. Of the total amount of Central, State and Institute share of Rs. 860
million (US$14m, at 60:1) pending to be released by the States, an amount equivalent to
Rs. 584 million (68%) pertains to funds not released for more than 50 days. If additional
funds can be given to well-performing institutions, this will make it much more likely that
all the available resources are utilized. It is noteworthy that 56 institutions have already
received their full allocation.

Page3

IV. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

7. The fourth institutional performance assessment of all TEQIP institutes (186 in total,

excluding the four institutes that have weeded out from the project3) has been effectively
carried out by MHRD/ NPIU (Annex 3). Institutions continue to take this exercise
seriously and the impact is clearly seen in the increasing number of institutions meeting
all the specified performance indicators. A total of 122 institutions have met all the latest
set of indicators compared to only 64 institutions meeting all the previous set of
indicators.

8.

In the most recent performance assessment (as of July 14, 2015), almost all the first cycle
institutions (150 of 154) are achieving7-9 of the indicators, and institutions from the
second cycle alsocontinue to show improvement with the majority (27 of 34) meeting 7-9
indicators.

9.

The following shows institutional performance:

122 institutions achieving all 9 indicators

40 institutions achieving8 indicators
15 institutions achieving7 indicators
9 institutions achieving < = 6 indicators

10. In line with the recommendations of previous JRMs, the MHRD/NPIU has only released

additional funds if an institution has met all the latest set of performance indicators.
th

11. The National Steering Committee (NSC) (at its 10 meeting on May 28, 2015) made

noteworthy decisions regarding poorly performing institutions. Of the 17 institutions

which had consistently been unable to achieve at least 60% of the indicators over the
course of the past three institutional performance assessments (Dec 2013, April 2014 and
Dec 2014), the NSC decided to weed out four institutions from the project. The NSC also
decided to allow the remaining 13 institutions to continue under the project provided they
meet all the indicators by August 31, 2015, failing which these institutions would also be
removed from the project. As of July 14, 2015, five of these institutions have met all the 9
indicators, four have met 8 indicators and the remaining four have met 7 indicators. The
JRM team commends the NSC for these difficult decisions.
12. The government has agreed in principle to release additional funds (Rs 5 crores for

government institutions and Rs. 2 crores for private institutions) to well performing
institutions (minutes of decision meeting are awaited).It is important that the additional
funds are released quickly so that the institutions can utilize the funds within the project
period.
13. The JRM also noted that inordinate delay in release of funds from some states to

institutions continues to be a source of concern under the project. There are 57 institutions
that reported delay in the release of funds from their respective state for more than 50
days. In addition, in some cases, only a partial amount has been released to the institution.

One additional institution that was earlier recommended for weeding out has been re-included by the National
Steering Committee to participate, albeit with a reduced allocation. The formalities for this institution to
participate have not yet been completed, so that institution has not been included in the statistical data presented
in this AM.

Page4

Recommendations

MHRD/NPIU should release funds to institutions which have met 8 or 9 of the indicators
by August 31, 20154.The indicator related to NBA accreditation should have been met.

It is recommended to give all institutions a further set of performance indicators (5th JRM
indicators), to be met by November 30, 2015. MHRD/NPIU is advised to release the next
rounds of funds to institutes only once they have met all the indicators. It is recommended
that an indicator is included which relates to the states funds releases. The indicators
could include:

i. Autonomy (received 2(f) recognition from UGC; and obtained autonomy or applied to
UGC for autonomy with no objection from university)
ii. Minutes of meeting of Board of Governors taking place in last 4 months published on the
institutions website
iii. NBA accreditation (55% accredited; or completion application for 55% sent to NBA, i.e.,
fee paid and Self-Assessment Report having been completed)
iv. Commitment of 100% of funds received
v. Expenditure of at least 70% of total funds received
vi. Procurement plan to cover 100% of planned procurement expenditures
vii. Completion of all data input into the MIS for 2014-15 (exception to be provided for
institutions where the results are delayed)
viii. Funds released by the state to the institution within 45 days of receipt from MHRD
ix. Institution has deposited required funds in each of the Four Funds, as against annual
expenditure reported in the MIS.
V. KEY ACTIVITIES
14. This JRM investigated in detail five specific issues: Governance, Affiliation System,

Mentorship and Performance Auditing, Faculty Development, and the Four Funds. The
following sections take each issue in turn and examine the current situation, outline the
main issues and concerns, identify good practices that were found, and make
recommendations. Recommendations include both short-term and long-term actions.
A. Governance
Current Status
15. Strengthening the governance of TEQIP institutions is a high priority under TEQIP II.

This is reflected in the benchmarking where four of the ten performance assessment
indicators identified in December 2014 are directly linked to strengthening the
institutional governance.
16. Overall, there has been good progress in achieving the governance performance

assessment indicators as indicated in the table below. Out of the 186 institutions that are
participating in TEQIP the vast majority have met the four indicators pertaining to
institutions being autonomous (obtained or applied for); institutions having published the
minutes of the Board of Governors meeting; institutions having completed their
governance development plan and/or institutional governance guidelines; and institutions
having updated their Institutional Development Plan.

This pertains to indicatorsdetermined in the 4th JRM.

Page5

Performance Assessment Indicator

Autonomy (obtained or applied to UGC with no objection from
university and state government)
Published the minutes of the Board of Governors meeting (last 4
months) on their institutions web-site
Institutions having completed their governance development plan
and/or institutional governance guidelines, approved by governance
body and published on institutions web-side
Institutions having a revised Institutional Development Plan published
on the institutions web-site

Number of
institutions (as
at July 2015)
171
177
180
178

Source: NPIU
17. Most of the SPFU representatives met during the JRM felt that the governance initiatives

taken have had a positive impact on the institutions ability to improve the quality and
relevance of their teaching and learning. They were strongly in favour of the governance
initiatives to be continued under the project. Many institutions within TEQIP that have a
dynamic and active industrialist as Chairman of their Board of Governors (BoG) were
said to have achieved significant progress.
Key concerns and examples of good practices
18. It is evident that some institutions and state government Departments of Technical

Education have difficulties in understanding and implementing the good governance

guidelines.This underscores the importance of sharing examples of good governance
practices across states and institutions. It is important that institutions understand that
their BoG is for the whole institution, and that the BoG is permanent not just for
TEQIP activities and/or for a limited period. Institutions that have recognized this are
doing well. One such example is described in the report by the Observer Research
Foundation Mumbai on how the College of Engineering in Pune (COEP) transformed
itself into a high quality engineering institution when it became an autonomous
engineering college in 20045. Based on the experiences at COEP, the JRM was told that
the State of Maharashtra with the support of the Governor has decided to launch an effort
to create up to 50 more institutions on the governance model of COEP.
19. Most TEQIP institutions have not yet completed their Governance Guidelines Document,

which is the third and final step of the good government process, and due in December.
Again sharing learning from how other institutions have gone about preparing and
implementing the institutional governance guidelines is important. BVB Hublihas
developed their own governance guidelines that are customized to its need6. Other
colleges can be inspired by these but will have to customize their documents to their own
needs. It should be noted, however, that one important lesson from the Hubli case is that
the governance developments should be driven by the needs of the institution and their

The publication Excellence Through Autonomy Transformation of College of Engineering Pune into an
IIT-like institution is available on the URL
http://orfmumbaionline.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/ExcellenceThroughAutonomy.pdf
6TheGovernmentGuidelinesDocumentforBVBHubliisavailableatthefollowing

URL:www.teqipgoodgovernance.in/pdf/2.%20New
BVB%20Governance%20Document%20June%202014.pdf

Page6

understanding of the essential contribution good governance makes to becoming a better

quality institution and not some external need to meet TEQIP requirements.
Autonomous Institutions
20. The table below gives an overview of the status of academic autonomy of TEQIP

institutions. Currently, 121 have obtained academic autonomy, while 65 institutions are at
various stages of processing their application to become academic autonomous
institutions.Progress has overall been slow; 9 additional TEQIP institutions have obtained
autonomous status from UGC over the last 1.5 years.Fifteen institutions have their
applications pending with the affiliating university and 50 institutions have their
autonomy application pending with UGC.

Participating TEQIP institutions

Autonomous
Pending applications for autonomy
Applied to UGC for Autonomy,
UGC assessment
Applied to University for
Autonomy and to be forwarded to
UGC

December
2013
190
112
78
33

April
2014
190
115
75
47

December
2014
190
118
72
44

July
2015
186
121
65
50

31

19

25

15

Source: NPIU
21. By the end of TEQIP II, ten additional TEQIP institutions need to become autonomous in

order to meet the project KPI on autonomous institutions.

22. As part of the TEQIP mission, Dr.Manju Singh Joint Secretary UGC met with the TEQIP

institutions that have pending applications for autonomy with UGC. She mentioned that
four pre-requisites are necessary to put together a complete application to become an
autonomous college: 1) the college should be a minimum of ten years old, 2) it should be
recognized under section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 3) have NBA accreditation in at least three
courses or a minimum B grade in NAAC accreditation, and 4) the application has to be
sent through the affiliating university.
23. Many TEQIP institutions have not met the second pre-requisite, though this is a

straightforward step which they must take first. Ms. Singh reminded institutions to copy
the affidavit word for word; else their application for 2(f) status would be rejected. Ms.
Singh agreed to consult with her colleagues who process 2(f) applications to ensure those
from TEQIP institutions are processed expeditiously.
24. A number of other institutions face a challenge that their affiliating university has

recently changed because of the creation/restructuring of the affiliating university in their

state, often into an affiliating technical university (ATU). These institutions will have to
receive their no objection from their new university. Those institutions which are
currently autonomous, but whose affiliating university has changed, are required to
submit a simple change of information form to UGC but their autonomous status
continues. In case of change in name (only), then a new Form 2(f) will have to be
submitted.
25. Ms. Singh said that pre-requisite (3) would be considered to be met where NBA

accreditation had recently lapsed and the institution has applied for re-accreditation. Ms.
Singh also noted that the wording of the UGC regulations would suggest that either NBA

Page7

or NAAC accreditation would suffice to meet this pre-requisite; though to date no

technical college with only NAAC accreditation had applied for autonomy. Were such an
institution to apply, she would seek clarification for this issue within UGC.
26. It was agreed that for the institutions that had not yet obtained autonomy, UGC will seek

to make a decision on all the pending applications meeting the pre-requisites for obtaining
autonomy within three months. Ms. Singh noted that one factor which often causes delay
is the nomination of a state government and of an affiliating university representative to
the review committee. She recommended that TEQIP institutions approach the chair of
the committee if they have not heard about a visit date within 3 weeks of the committees
establishment.
27. Finally, the NPIU informed Ms. Singh that under the TEQIP project, institutions in low-

income/special category states were allowed to participate in TEQIP even if only 4 years
old; and are also expected to apply for autonomy. Ms. Singh said that the project unit
should write to UGC to seek an exception for these institutions for requirement #1.
28. Now that increasing numbers of institutions have received or are likely to receive

academic autonomy, it is important the project investigates more systematically the way
institutions are using autonomy to make quality improvements.
Recommendations

Strengthening the Good Governance Programme should remain a priority in TEQIP II.
NPIU and SPFUs should facilitate the completion of the Good Governance Programme
through hands-on workshops, sharing good practice (including through the website) and
guidance, such that BoGswould complete their Governance Guidelines Document before
December 2015.

NPIU should plan a series of training workshops for BoG members at the request of
SPFUs.

NPIU should undertake an evaluation of the governance initiatives undertaken under

TEQIP II to inform which governance initiatives should be continued as well as new ones
to be developed going forward by December 2015.

NPIU and SPFUs should develop an action plan for each institution that has not obtained
academic autonomy from UGC. Where necessary, SPFUs should approach the affiliating
university to expedite the autonomy application. NPIU should follow up on the agreed
actions with UGC and monitor progress. The action plan should be developed by 30th
September 2015.
B. Affiliation System
Current Status

29. In a majority of states, engineering colleges (both government and private unaided) are

affiliated to an ATU.ATUs serve a large number of academic and administrative

functions in relation to their affiliated colleges (AC) including managing the admissions
process, setting curricula, conducting examinations, appointing faculty, processing
applications for accreditation and autonomy, carrying out inspections and reviews, and
awarding degrees.

Page8

30. One of the goals of TEQIP-II is to strengthen institutional capacity of colleges, which

makes it pertinent to address their relationship with their respective ATU. Some ATUs
are being supported under TEQIP-II but only in relationship to the teaching-research
activities that they conduct for their own students.
31. The leadership and management capacity of the university administration and the

academic capacity of university teaching departments are important resources in ATUs

that could be leveraged for the development of affiliated colleges. However, in most
cases, ATUs are currently limited to playing a compliance monitoring role. This problem
is exacerbated in cases of ATUs having a large number of ACs under their jurisdiction.
Concerns
32. Most ATUs are severely understaffed. Faculty from their university teaching departments

and constituent colleges are frequently diverted from their academic duties in order to
assist with admissions, examinations, and reviews of ACs. Further, Vice-Chancellor,
Registrar and even regular faculty member positions are either vacant or temporarily
filled at many of those institutions.
33. Understaffing results in long procedural delays and in an ineffective affiliating role, for

example in reporting examination results. Understaffing also restricts the role the ATU
can play in supporting the development of ACs. In some cases, there are a large number
of faculty vacancies in project ACs, which results in ACs being ineligible for
accreditation and autonomy (which are prerequisites for funding under TEQIP-II). In
many cases, the accreditation and autonomy applications of eligible ACs are held up
because of delays in obtaining no objection certificates from ATUs.
34. Some states (for e.g. UP and Kerala) have attempted to introduce efficiency in the

affiliation system by setting up technical universities which are mandated to manage the
affiliation process for all colleges in the state and do not carry out teaching or research.
This is intended to reduce the administrative burden on teaching universities.
35. The affiliation system presents significant operational variations across states. At the

same time, autonomy is interpreted differently across ATUs considering that in many
cases, full academic and administrative autonomy has not been granted to project ACs
that have obtained academic autonomy from the UGC.
Recommendations

NPIU, with the assistance of the World Bank, should carry out a comprehensive
assessment of the functioning of the affiliation system across states in terms of its scope,
variations, procedures, advantages and limitations. The assessment should focus on
ATUs, and should analyse the related academic, logistical and financial implications of
ATUs for the entire system and their relationship with ACs. It also should include a
deeper analysis of the extent to which procedures are duplicated across the accreditation
and affiliation systems, and a review of means to simplify these processes. To be
completed by December 2015.

NPIU and the SPFUs should prepare a report describing lessons learned and good
practices in the affiliation system and in the process for obtaining autonomy by ACs by
June 2016. Such a report should be considered by the State Steering Committee and
disseminated among TEQIP and non TEQIPII ACs.

NPIU to explore means to adequately integrate ATUs in the TEQIP project by fostering a
more effective quality-focussed relationship between them and ACs. This will also

Page9

strengthen their role as focal points for the dissemination of good practices to both project
and non-project ACs.

State governments to incentivise reform of the affiliation system, including a feasibility

analysis and related stimulus aimed at merging small colleges and creating college cluster
universities.

NPIU to include specific activities devoted to foster effective exchange of information

and sharing of experiences among ATUs. Starting immediately.
C. Mentorship/ Performance Auditing
Current status

36. The mission is very pleased to witness the important role being played by both mentors

and performance auditors in providing candid feedback and support (on academic and
administrative issues) to institutions. The JRM team also heard how mentors working
together with SPFUs can have a larger impact. Also, it is encouraging to observe that
when necessary NPIU has acted in replacing a few mentors and performance auditors
unable to fulfil their assignments.
37. Before closure of the TEQIP-II project (as per the current plan), a final Performance

Audits expected to be held, tentatively between January-March2016. It is expected that

mentors will continue their work with institutions in the remaining period of TEQIP II.
Key Issues and Concerns
38. There is some confusion among participating institutions regarding the different but

complementary roles of mentors and performance auditors (as outlined in the Handbook).
Consequently, institutions do not fully benefit from both advisory/assessment advice
available to them.
39. Several of the institutions are not systematically taking advantage of their mentors. There

are even some cases in which institutions have never requested the mentorship support.
Likewise, the mentorship support seems sometimes to be provided to institutions on an
ad-hoc basis. Nevertheless, other than anecdotal information, no hard evidence exists
about the usefulness of mentors role and functions in the project from the point of view
of the beneficiary institutions, and about ways in which such activity can be improved for
their benefit.
40. There are cases in which non-existing mentorship is a reality either because institutions

are not interested on their support, or because mentors are not engaged/available.
However, no systematic detection mechanism is in place in order to timely and
adequately identify those inadequacies and to make necessary changes. Also, mentors are
not presently assigned while taking into account an institutions strengths and weaknesses
(and hence specific mentorship needs).
41. In order for the next round of Performance Auditing to be effective, i.e., to provide

effective feedback to institutions, to benchmark institutional performance in a consistent

way, and to document project achievements, it is necessary to ensure all Performance
Auditors are trained and an effective quality assurance system for Performance Audit
reports is in place.

Page10

Recommendations

NPIU should conduct two separate short anonymous surveys of no more than 10
questions each for (i) participating institutions and (ii) mentors and performance auditors,
in order to obtain their general feedback about the usefulness and areas for future
improvement of the mentorship and performance auditing components of the project. The
survey should be conducted in August-September 2015.

NPIU should further refine the selection process, profile, training, and assignment of

mentors. In reviewing the entire process, it is recommended: (i) to more systematically

assign mentors to institutions based on their strengths/weaknesses, (ii) to have a
mechanism in place in order to more systematically evaluate the relationship between
mentors and mentee institutions, and (iii) to include a mechanism under which
participating institutions can provide input on best matchmaking mentorship
arrangements. Some options to consider are the following:
o
Participating institutions being able to suggest in advance names of
potential mentors.
o
Participating institutions and mentors conduct a preliminary meeting to
discuss if a good match for further mentorship exists.

NPIU should establish a mandatory standardized training for all mentors, by the end of
September, and establish an adequate mechanism for them to continuously exchange
ideas, experiences and practice-sharing.

NPIU, working with SPFUs, should foster a more systematic, frequent and effective

communication system between mentors and institutions, measuring and monitoring more
effectively such interaction not only in terms of onsite visits and online communications,
but also in the achievement of goals and performance indicators of institutions. In
addition to providing general mentorship support to institutions, mentors should connect
institutes with adequate specialised resources based on concrete needs on specific areas.

NPIU should take advantage of upcoming interactions of mentors with institutions by

asking them in advance to collect, using a simple template, information about institutional
good practices on the different components of the project to be later compiled and shared
among institutions and with the public at large.

All Performance Auditors should participate in a mandatory training provided by NPIU

which includes specific clarifications and training on the required characteristics that
good PA reports should have.
NPIU needs to develop an effective quality assurance system for Performance Audit

reports prior to the next round of visits.

NPIU should review the effectiveness of the current Performance-Auditing function and,

if necessary, consider alternative ways to carry out this function. An option being
suggested is to build into the MIS system components aimed at obtaining such
information directly from institutions, and conducting on-site PA more on a random or
selective basis.
It is recommended that NPIU hosts workshops periodically with mentors and

performance auditors in order to obtain their input and recommendations for

strengthening TEQIP institutes. These workshopsshould be informed by the results of the
surveys recommended in the previous paragraphs.

Page11

D. Faculty and Student Development

Current Status
42. The current status for faculty and management development is shown in the table below.

It is positive that the number of participants who have received training at IITs is 2,000
by July 2015 which is close to the end-of-project target of 2,200. A special effort is
required to meet the target for the number of faculty/officials attended management
capacity enhancement training at IIMs, which was 1302 as of July 2015.The target to be
met by October 2016 is 2280.
Target Indicators for management and
faculty development
Number of faculty members benefitted from the
training by IITs
Number
of
faculty/officials
attended
management capacity enhancement training at
IIMs

Achievement
July 2015
2,000

Project Target
October 2016
2,200

1,302

2,280

43. There are 7 IIMs offering management and leadership development and 8 IITs offering a

variety of faculty development activities. IIMs are working well together and have
developed a core curriculum which is used by all the IIMs for the basic courses offered to
institutions. The links with the Good Governance Programme have become strong.The
IITs are offering a more diverse set of activities, centred on specific subject areas, and
driven by the availability of faculty in each IIT and the demand from TEQIP institutions.
44. The team had a video-conference with the team at IIT Madras that is spearheading the

Quality Enhancement in Engineering Education (QEEE) initiative. The program consists

of live lectures, remote tutorials, remote labs, open courses, bridge programs, e-books and
remote quizzes. About 10,000 students and their teachers from 87 TEQIP institutions are
participating in the programme. The JRM team also noted that QEEE includes nonTEQIP institutions, which is a welcome sign of the impact that TEQIP can have beyond
the institutions in the project. The initiative started in early 2014 and has matured through
several rounds of gaining experience of how best to deliver the different activities.
45. The progress in terms of student and faculty feedback has been significant over the last

year. The feedback from the QEEE delivery from January to April 2014 was mixed. Forty
per cent of the students and 63 per cent of the teachers rated the activities above
expectations and 35 per cent of the students and 21 per cent of the teachers rated the
activities below expectations. In the QEEE semester January to April 2015, the
percentage of the students rating the QEEE activities above expectation rose to 70 per
cent and for teachers to 79 per cent.
46. QEEE has two major challenges: 1) many institutions did not have the necessary

technological requirements and connectivity in place from the start and 2) syllabus
mismatch between the colleges and the offerings under QEEE. The first problem is being
addressed by TEQIP institutions from their project funds, albeit slowly. The second is a
never-ending challenge given the diversity of curricula across the country. The QEEE
team aims to address this in the upcoming semester by taking a topic-focussed approach,
where each topic will be covered in three sessions (total of six hours). The lectures and
quiz will focus only on the integral parts of a module in order to overcome the challenge
of syllabus mismatches. It was important to note that this approach is consistent with the

Page12

views of SPFUs, who were overwhelmingly in favour of QEEE focusing on basic

courses, reaching a larger number of students and especially those in rural areas, rather
than on advanced courses.
47. During the meeting with SPFUs, several states anecdotally mentioned that the different

training activities carried out by IITs had had a positive impact of the quality of teaching
and learning as faculty have gained knowledge about the use of E-library, e-learning
material and improved pedagogy. However, SPFUs also noted that the incentives for
faculty to participate in training increases significantly when that training is for 5 days or
more as in this way the training can be counted towards the necessary professional
certifications for career development.
Key issues and concerns
48. Despite recommendations to this effect in previous JRMs, there are as yet no mechanisms

in place to understand better the quality and relevance of the faculty development and
management activities initiated under TEQIP II. IIMs have made some strides in this
direction, given their common core curriculum. The JRM has recognised that the work of
the IITs is necessarily tailored to the needs of different institutions; but the JRM still
believes that there should be a more robust collection of data against agreed indicators to
measure the difference that these activities are making to faculty at TEQIP institutions;
these indicators might vary across IITs, but it is incumbent on the IITs to propose a
monitoring scheme.
49. The Mission found the QEEE program to be very effective and there appears to be the

capacity to extend the program, both in terms of services offered (to include a faculty
development component) and number of institutions served. This may require a different
form of organization in order to ensure the longer-term sustainability of these activities.
50. The QEEE program is collecting an impressive array of data about its program

implementation. Now that the program interventions are settling down, it is an opportune
time to review the data being collected so that as the program moves forward the
effectiveness of different interventions can be assessed.
51. The number of faculty requiring pedagogical and subject-based training, even in TEQIP

institutions, means that there will need to be multiple avenues through which institutions
support faculty development (i.e., institutions should not just rely on the work of the
IITs).
52. International travel for faculty and students is an important element of capacity building,

since this exposes faculty and students to new ideas and enables India to display the
progress it is making in engineering education. Present policy under the project is that
those institutions which are well-performing should have the final decision-making
authority over who undertakes international travel; other institutions need to seek
approval from MHRD.
53. The JRM also was informed about the success of a couple of students under the MITACS

program, who were able to adapt cutting-edge research to Indias needs. The MITACS
program this year has started relatively small; but with hopes that next year it will expand.

Page13

Recommendations
NPIU should commission an evaluation of the activities undertaken by the IIMs and by

the IITs, taking into account the proposals from the IIMs and IITs for how to do this by
December 1, 2015;
NPIU should develop an action plan with the IITs and IIMs to ensure that the targets for

IIT and IIM training will be reached by October 2016;

NPIU should discuss with the QEEE program the data that is being gathered currently,

what analyses can be done and what analyses should be done going forward;
MHRD/NPIU to consider and agree with IIT Madras how to continue the QEEE program

by 31st December 2015, including the possibility of a faculty development program.

MHRD should continue to allow the BoGs to give approval for international travel of

faculty in those TEQIP institutions that have met all the performance benchmarks. A final
decision on this should be made soon.
NPIU to organize a meeting of students who participated in the MITACS program in

order to learn lessons for the programs expansion next year.

Faculty and management training should be organized systematically and information

about the offerings should be available on NPIU web-site with links to the course
offerings by the individual course delivery institutions. The courses should furthermore
largely be based on demand from TEQIP institutions (and should also be available for use
by non-TEQIP institutions);
Based on the peer-reviewers CoE Progress Review Sheets it is suggested that NPIU

engage two experts to do a desk review of good practices of the CoEs and issues that
represent challenges for the CoEs to meet their targets. The report is to be finalized by
December 1, 2015 and will be useful for strengthening theCoE initiative.

E. The Four Funds

Current Status
54. To sustain development activities initiated in project institutions under TEQIP II post

project closure, all project funded institutes are required to have established four funds:
Corpus Fund, Faculty Development Fund, Equipment Replacement Fund and
Maintenance Fund. Project institutions are required to build these funds with annual
contribution into each Fund equal to at least 0.5% of annual recurring expenditure of the
institution. Further, each project institution is encouraged to additionally contribute an
amount from its savings into the Corpus Fund. Importantly, institutions are required to
contribute this amount from their own funds and not from the project funds.
55. The Project Implementation Plan says that institutions are to utilize the revenue from the

four funds only after the project closes, following approval from the BoG as per rules
developed in consonance with state government guidelines (if any).

Page14

56. Project institutes in all states and UTs have been building the four funds, with the

exception of three cases: Delhi, Puducherry and Tripura. In general, the amount deposited
in the corpus fund is much higher than the amount in the other funds, often by a multiple
of ten (Table 1).
Table 1: TEQIP II Four Funds Summary (INR lakhs)
2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Corpus

12333.43

30234.57

53579.37

89414.85

90400.93

Faculty
Development

2003.68

3916.67

5762.54

8505.43

8974.86

Equipment
Replacement

2450.88

3705.63

5320.63

7459.53

7895.42

Maintenance

3403.77

4502.9

5951.82

8225.75

8697.45

Source: TEQIP MIS

57. There is considerable variation in amounts generated across states, with Karnataka

leading. There appears to be little association between the number of institutes in a state
and that states aggregate generation of the four funds. For instance, while Karnataka,
followed by Maharashtra and Telangana all states with a large number of TEQIP
institutes lead in terms of amount of funds generated, West Bengal and Kerala, also
states with a large number of project institutes, are among the states with the least
generation of funds. In the former group of states, high levels of local industry presence
are likely to have contributed to revenue generation efforts. The capacity of institutions to
retain student fees (and therefore have this as a source of revenue) varies across states.
58. There is also considerable variation across institutes in the amount generated, with the

bulk of funds having been generated by CFIs across all years and the least amount by
private unaided colleges.
Key Issues
59. With some exceptions, such as Telangana institutes, project institutions have not begun

planning the utilization of the four funds. In Telangana, for instance, many of the colleges
have drawn plans to use the four funds to continue their project activities beyond October
2016, whereas some need clarity and are in the process of making plans. In some cases,
the respective BoG has already approved these plans. In most other states, while most
TEQIP colleges have been depositing funds into the four accounts (even if minimally), to
date no discussion has taken place in the colleges or the state about how to use these
funds following the project.
60. During field visits, colleges mentioned that different colleges may wish to use their funds

in different ways, in line with decisions made in the respective BoG (and subject to the
overall requirement to use the funds to sustain activities initiated under TEQIP II).
Importantly, colleges which have not purchased equipment under TEQIP II would like to
redeploy funds from the Equipment Replacement Fund and Maintenance Fund to other
developmental uses.

Page15

61. A number of colleges have not been able to use the funds generated under TEQIP I for

project sustenance. In some cases this was because the institution continued in TEQIP II
and there was a lack of clarity whether they could utilize their funds collected under
TEQIP I, and whether the TEQIP FM Manual would be applicable for the use of these
funds. Of greater concern is that some states did not allow TEQIP I institutions (who did
not continue into TEQIP II) to spend the money accumulated in the funds because they
took back the decision-making power granted to the Boards of Governors and/or the
Finance Department took over the funds; or no rules were formulated either by the SPFU
or the colleges.
Recommendations

All colleges need to ensure that all required resources are deposited in the four funds and
report this through the MIS, by 31st October 2015. SPFUs should monitor and follow up
as necessary.

Colleges should discuss guidelines for the management of these funds, and SPFUs should
issue, by the end of November 2015, guidelines (as per PIP requirement), including the
discretion available to individual colleges and their BoGs. The expectation is that BoGs
would continue to exercise the decision-making powers over the Funds (and indeed over
the whole institution) that they exercise during the Project.

NPIU should consult with SPFUs by October 2015, so that SPFUs can clarify in their
guidance the circumstances under which:
o Funds marked for one purpose could be used for another purpose, but still used for
sustaining TEQIP activities, especially for those colleges that have not purchased
equipment.
o TEQIP II institutions which also participated in TEQIP I (and built up funds under
that project)are able to use these funds immediately for sustaining TEQIP I activities.
o Institutions which have spent all their allocation under TEQIP II (including any
additional funds received as a result of being a well-performing institution)are able to
utilize their Four Funds, in order to ensure continuity of TEQIP II activities (for
example, for faculty development and student scholarships) even before TEQIP II
ends.
F. Other Issues

62. The mission met with the Chairman, NBA, Dr Nassa, to review the status of accreditation

applications of TEQIP institutes with NBA. The Chairman shared a list of the status of
applications of all TEQIP institutes, noting that fourteen had completed all formalities
and an inspection committee would be sent soon. He mentioned that in a large number of
the remaining cases, the institute had either not submitted the self assessment report or
not provided dates for the committee to visit. In addition, the Chairman flagged two
issues. First, the accreditation process for PG programmes is lengthier, and hence MHRD
may want to consider whether NBA should prioritize accreditation of UG programmes.
Second, in Karnataka, UGC had not yet renewed the autonomous status of previously
autonomous institutes whose autonomy period had expired. Since autonomous colleges
are Tier I colleges with different criteria for accreditation, unless NBA knows whether a
college is to be regarded as Tier I or Tier II, it is unable to complete the accreditation

Page16

process. Finally, the Chairman noted that TEQIP institutes are the top performers in their
accreditation scale.
Recommendations

MHRD, NPIU and the World Bank should decide whether they would prefer to prioritize
accreditation of UG programmes and communicate the same to the NBA by the latest at
end of September 2015.

NPIU should follow up with institutes that have not submitted their self assessment forms
and ask them to expedite the process. Starting immediately.

NPIU should seek clarification from UGC on renewal/cancellation of autonomous status

for previously autonomous institutes in Karnataka, whose autonomous status needs to be
renewed/cancelled. Starting immediately.

63. The NPIU and World Bank conducted a survey of TEQIP institutes on faculty transfers

between 2011 and 2014. Of the 190 TEQIP institutes, faculty transfers happen in only 53
institutes. Preliminary findings suggest that in these institutes, the volume of faculty
transfers is non-trivial. Since 2011, 29 percent of faculty were transferred, and 5%
retired. A slightly higher percentage of women faculty members were transferred relative
to male faculty members. Especially worrying is the fact that a much higher percentage of
principals were transferred (55 percent) relative to other faculty members, suggesting
leadership discontinuities. States varied in teacher transfer rates, with some states
registering transfer rates upwards of 30percent, while others were less than 5percent.
There is little relationship between transfer rates and faculty tenure in these data; for
instance, in Kerala, approximately 40percent of faculty was transferred between 2011 and
2014, but the average tenure of faculty in sample institutes was only 2.89 years. Overall,
across all states, 76percent of vacancies were filled in the same semester or next, but in
24percent of cases, vacancies were not filled for over a year.
Recommendations

States should examine their faculty transfer policies, and learn from good practices of
states such as Tamil Nadu that mandate all faculty to spend a minimum period of time in
(clearly identified) less popular locations.

VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

64. The project continues to make good progress towards achieving the revised end-of-

project targets. The Results Framework Document is updated (as per Annex 2). The
number of institutions now providing adequate data in the MIS has also increased to 173
compared to 156 institutions in the last JRM. An additional round of training was held in
March 2015 for institutions with incomplete MIS. NPIU should continue to follow-up and
train the remaining institutions in completing the data-entry.
65. The data for 2012-13 has been locked.
66. Sustainability of the MIS: The contract with CORE has been amended and will be

effective till September 30, 2016. SPFUs overwhelmingly expressed the view that they
find the MIS useful and would like to continue using the MIS after the project period.
They also expressed that it would be helpful to make it more user friendly by enabling
further drill-down. In addition, it would help if institutions could customize the report

Page17

based on their needs. SPFUs also wished that the MIS should be made available to nonTEQIP institutions.
67. Tracer Study: A meeting was held with experts to finalize the Terms of Reference of the

tracer study.
68. Faculty, Staff and Student Satisfaction Survey: The vendor for the survey, Infova, has

not provided NPIU the data or institute report cards in the prescribed format.
Recommendations

NPIU to freeze the data for 2013-14 by 15th November, 2015.

MHRD/ NPIU to explore the possibility of migrating the MIS to a server and to an
agency maintained by the government so that TEQIP II institutions can continue to use
the MIS after the project, and the system would be accessible to non-TEQIP institution.
The MIS should be enhanced to include the feature of customizing reports based on need,
for example, for AICTE, NBA and NAAC. A sustainability plan should be developed by
October 31, 2015.

The TORs for the Tracer Study will need to be revised and finalized based on discussions
held during the JRM. The survey should be designed, administered and the data collection
for the 2013-14 batch as well as 2014-15 batch should be completed by December
2015.Subsequently, focus group discussions with some students and employers can be
held.

VII. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

69. Release of Funds by States continues to be an area of concern. MHRD is now consistently

taken less than one month to consider requests and make releases to state governments.
However, even though state governments are gradually reducing the time taken to release
funds, most states are generally taking 3 months or more to release their and MHRD
funds to institutions. The Table below provides details. One of the institutional
performance assessment indicators is proposed to be on state fund releases (see Section
IV above).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS TAKEN TO RELEASE FUNDS

MHRD releases
Installments

AP
TELANGANA
CHHATTISGARH

47
53
0

35
47
0

15
0

10
68

NCT-Delhi
GUJARAT
HARYANA
HIMACHAL
PRADESH

34
80
79

15

22

143

JHARKHAND
KARNATAKA
KERALA
MADHYA
PRADESH

97
46
45

65
40
75

80

20

15

190
186
439

130
132

91
111

75
217

17

177
89
323

119
58

61

11

326

117

72

25

128
226
67

149
116
75

313
131
81

96

107

21

161

65

55

10

State releases

11

COE
137

136
252
134
171

Page18

MAHARASHTRA
ODISHA
PUNJAB
RAJASTHAN
TAMIL NADU

40
55
42
34
58

53
20
18
66

21

72

TRIPURA
UT-CHANDIGARH
UT-PUDUCHERRY
UTTAR PRADESH
UTTARKHAND

46
27
76
76

46
15
14
42

55

WEST BENGAL

65

63

51

23

26

10

22

147
27
331
232
92

9
22

11

27

94
35

112
30

96
85

164
51

92
84
123
189
186

81
147
135
103

114
98
108
172

104

46

49

82

132

106

59

78

74

146

98
209
109
69

92

86

90

Source: NPIU data provided to the JRM. Note: no data is available for the first release from
MHRD, since this was not made on request but at the start of the project activities.
70. Adequacy of State/ Institutes Share: On the whole it is observed that for a number of

States there is shortfall of release of State and Institutes respective shares.

71. Compliance of Audit Observations: This remains an area of concern. Presently there is no

formal audit observation compliance mechanism in place to ensure timely follow-up of

the audit observations of each audit.
72. Monitoring by NPIU and SPFUs: Regular monitoring of FM issues by NPIU and SPFUs

is crucial for improving the FM performance of the project.

73. Financial Reporting:

The mission was informed that E-FMR continues to be

implemented partially and IFR submitted to the Bank is based on the excel summaries
sent by the institutes and the SPFUs.
Recommendations

The mission suggests pilot in few states/institutes setting up formal audit observation
compliance mechanism like Audit Committee at SPFUs.

The PMSS should be amended so that the e-FMR can be generated automatically rather
than institutions having to enter the information separately into the e-FMR.

A relevant arrangement should be designed and implemented for monitoring and

reporting the utilization of interest received on funds.

VIII. PROCUREMENT
74. The gap in expenditure is reported in the FMR and PMSS. The procurement expenditure

reported in PMSS is Rs. 429.32 crores whereas the expenditure reported in FMR is Rs.
579.68 crores. This Rs. 150.36 cr difference in both the figures is due to some of the
payments are not updated in PMSS by the participating institutions. NPIUs may impress
upon all SPFUs who in turn advise institutions under their control to enter payments
details in PMSS so that the gaps between two figures is eliminated. For this a time bound
action plan is need to be implemented to clear the backlog.
75. The total procurement expenditure estimated upto June 2015 end is Rs. 929 Crores. The

mission noted that the revised loan amount for this project is USD 220 mn. As per project
requirement, the maximum procurement allowed for Institutes under component 1.1 and

Page19

67

Centre of excellence is 55% of the outlay and that for 1.2 Institutes, the cap is 45%.
Taking avg cap of 50%, the total revised expenditure under procurement for the project
will be USD 110 mn approx. Taking US$ conversion rate as INR 60 and Bank reimburse
60% of eligible expenditure, the projected eligible expenditure in procurement will be
(110x 6)/60%= INR 1100cr. The projected procurement expenditure shows a gap of Rs.
171 crores. This may need to be compensated through additional planning of procurement
of items by the Institutes or increase in the expenditure under soft component. It is also
recommended that institutes should plan 20% additional procurement to take care of
materialization factor.
76. There is a continuing need for procurement activities to be completed in a timely fashion.
77. Procurement Post Review (PPR) FY 15: Mission noted that for the PPR FY 15, the

PPR report was shared with NPIU and compliance to PPR comments have been received
from the institutes.
78. Complaint Handling. The mission informed the Procurement staff of NPIU about the

mandatory requirement of Banks review of the complaints and their resolution. Project
should submit the details of procurement complaints if any with actions taken on it to
Bank for review and its closer.JRM noted that the complaint regarding non-payment of
one supplier bills by RTU Kota has since been resolved.
Recommendations

NPIU should notify institutions that procurement activities for goods and works should be
completed (i.e., final payments made) by 31st December 2015. For those well-performing
institutions, this deadline should be set at 6 months from the release of additional funds.

NPIU will need to clarify the situation for those institutions which do not spend their
whole allocation; should the limit on funds to be spent on procurement apply to the
original allocation or only the amount of funds actually spent?

NPIU should look into the feasibility of linking the PMSS to the FMR such that
institutions do not have enter spending data twice. This should be done by 15th September
2015.

IX. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

79. The Central Project Advisors position was advertised and a committee has been formed

to review the applications.

80. Currently there are nine vacant positions in the NPIU (including the CPA). A couple of

positions have been suspended. It would be important to complete the hiring of required
positions as soon as possible.
X. STATUS OF ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN REPORT FROM PREVIOUS JRM
81. These are described in detail in Annex 6.

XI. NEW ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN FROM THIS JRM

82. These are listed in Annex 7.

Page20

Page21

Annex 1: Persons Met and Institutes Visited

S.No.
Name of the Participant
Ministry of HRD
1
Ms. Tripti Gurha
UGC
2
Ms. Manju Singh
The World Bank
3
Mr. Toby Linden
4

Mr. Francisco Marmalejo

Mr. Satya Mishra

6
7
8
9
10

Ms. Karthika Radhakrishnan

Nair
Mr. Satya Panda
Mr. Rudraksha Mitra
Ms. Tara Beteille
Mr. Kurt Larsen

11
12

Ms. Asha Bhagat

Ms. Supriti Dua

13

Ms. Neha Vyas

14
Ms. Ritu Sharma
Expert (MHRD nominee/IIT Experts)
15
Prof N K Mehta
16

Dr. R N Herkal

17

Prof Manoj K Arora

18
IIMs
19
20
21

Prof N C Shivaprakash

Organization

Director (TC)

Ministry of HRD, New

Delhi

Joint Secretary

UGC New Delhi

Lead Education
Specialist
Lead Education
Specialist
Social Development
Specialist
Operations Analyst

The World Bank

The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank

Procurement Specialist
Consultant (H.E)
Economist
Senior Education
Specialist
Consultant
Financial Management
Specialist
Senior Environmental
Specialist
Program Assistant

The World Bank

The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank

Expert (MHRD
nominee)
Expert (MHRD
nominee)
Expert (MHRD
nominee)
Expert

IIT Roorkee

Prof Prashant Salwan

Prof Punam Sahgal

The World Bank

The World Bank
The World Bank
The World Bank

BEC Bagalkot
PE
IISc Bangalore
IIM Indore
IIM Lucknow (Noida
Campus)
IIM Lucknow (Noida
Campus)
IIM Trichy
IIM Raipur
IIM Udaipur

Prof Manoj Anand

22
Prof V Gopal
23
Prof PRS Sharma
24
Mr. MandarNayak
Mentors
25
Prof Vikram M Gadre

Designation

Expert (MHRD
nominee)

IIT Bombay

Page22

S.No.
Name of the Participant
26
Prof B S Sonde
27
28
29

Prof N C Shivaprakash
Prof A K Nema
Prof Rajneesh Prakash

State Institutions
30
Prof V S S Kumar
31
Prof S K Roy

Designation
Mentor
Mentor
Mentor
Mentor
Vice Chancellor
Pro. VC

32

Prof M B Chaudhari

Principal (In-charge)

33
34

Mr. AP Raja Sarkar

Dr. S Ayoob

Prinicpal

35

Prof U Rasheed Kutty

36

Dr. B Sesha

Principal

37

Prof Praveen Kumar

TEQIP Coordinator

38

Prof Swapnesh S

Astt. TEQIP
Coordinator

39

Prof K Subathra

40

Prof P Thirumal

41

Prof B Pattnain

42
43
44

Prof Satya Mandal

Prof Anirban Mukherjee
Prof K Govinde

Registrar
Principal

45
46

Dr. B S Pabla
Prof S Dutta

Director
Principal

47

Prof M V Garach

Principal

48

Dr. N N Jana

Director

49

Prof. Md. Abu Safi

Director

Organization
Ex Professor, IISc
Bangalore
IISc Bangalore
IIT Delhi
Ex Principal (PECUT,
Chandigarh)
JNTU Kakinada
West Bengal University of
Technology, Kolkata
Govt. Engineering College,
Gandhinagar
MCET (42) West Bengal
TKM Engineering College,
Kollam
TKM Engineering College,
Kollam
UCE, Kakatiya University,
Kothaghdem
J N Govt. Engineering
College, Sundernagar
RGIT, Govt. Engineering
College, Kottayam
Govt. College of
Engineering, Bargur,
Tamilnadu
Govt. College of
Engineering, Bargur,
Tamilnadu
Chandigarh Engineering
College, Landran, Mohali
RCC IIT Beliaghat, Kolkata
RCC IIT Beliaghat, Kolkata
JNTU College of
Engineering,
Muddanur Road,
Pulivendula
NITTTR, Chandigarh
BankuraUnnayani Institute
of Engineering, Bankura
Government Engineering
College, Rajkot
College of Engineering and
Management, Kolaghat
Birbhum Institute of
Engineering and
Page23

S.No.

Name of the Participant

Designation

50

Dr. A S Jethoo

51

Dr. R P Sharma

52

Dr.Anindya Ghosh

53

Dr. B Anil

Principal

54

Dr. V Syam Prakash

Principal

55

Dr. Om Pal Singh

56

Dr.Byjubai T.P

Principal

57

Dr K C Raveendranathan

Principal

58

Dr. Z A Zoya

Principal

59
60

Dr. P K Singhal
Dr. M G Bhatt

Principal

61

Dr. B S Chawla

Principal

62
63

Dr. Ashish Dutta

Dr. Y P Banjare

Coordinator

64

Prof T Krishna Kumar

65
66

Dr. Sanjeev Jain

Prof M V Bhatti

67

Prof PardeepAshri

68

Prof O P Sharma

69

Dr. T Senthil Kumar

Dean

70

Dr. P Suresh Kumar

Coordinator

71

Prof Bijoy Kr Upadhyay

Associate Professor

Organization
Technology, (BIET ) Suri
Birbhum
Government Woman
Engineering College,
NasirabadRoad,Makhupura,
Ajmer
Cambridge Institute of
Technology, Ranchi
Govt. College of
Engineering & Textile
Tech, Berhampur
Govt. Engineering College,
Trivendrum
Govt. College of
Engineering, Kannur
Beant College of
Engineering & Technology,
Gurdaspur
Govt. Engineering College,
Kozhikode
LBS Institute of
Technology for Women,
Trivendrum
College of Engineering,
Perumon, Kollam
MITS, Gwalior
SS Engineering College,
Bhavnagar
Govt. Engineering College,
Bilaspur
SIRT Bhopal
Govt. Engineering College,
Jagdalpur
Govt. Engineering College
Trichy
MITS Gwalior
S.S Engineering Colelge,
Bhavnagar
UIET, Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra
UIET, Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra
BIT Campus, Anna
University
BIT Campus, Anna
University
Tripura Institue of
Page24

S.No.

Name of the Participant

72

Prof Samir KantiBhusan

73

Dr K G Chandrashekara

74

Prof Nagesh R

75

Prof S K Bansal

76

Dr. Ajay Kaushik

77

Dr. G GBhutada

78

Dr. P M Joshi

79

Dr. R S Parihar

80

Dr. S D Burman

81
82

Prof Dr. A Rajadurai

Dr. V B Gaikwad

83

Prof Suni S Atre

84
85
86

Prof I N Trivedi
Prof K E Prakash
Dr. J N Jha

87

Dr.Harwinder Singh

88

Prof Suresh Verma

89

Prof Raj Kumar

90
91
92
93

Prof Rahul Rishi

Prof Raj Kumar
Prof S R Upadhyay
Dr.Anuj Srivastava

94

Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal

Designation

Organization
Technology, Nasirgarh
Associate Professor
Tripura Institue of
Technology, Nasirgarh
Principal
Govt. Sri Krishnarajendra
Silver Jubilee
Technological Institute
Associate Professor
Govt. Sri Krishnarajendra
Silver Jubilee
Technological Institute
Government College of
Engineering, Bikaner
M L V Textile &
Engineering College,
Bhilwara
Government Engineering
College, Chandigarh
Government Engineering
College, Karad
Government Engineering
College, Raipur
Government Engineering
College, Raipur
Dean
MIT Anna University
Director
SavitribaiPhule Pune
University, Pune
Dy. Registrar, Academic SavitribaiPhule Pune
University, Pune
TEQIP Coordinator
GEC Gandinagar
Registrar
VTU Belagavi, Karnataka
TEQIP Coordinator
Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering College,
Ludhiana
Nodal Officer
Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering College,
Ludhiana
DeenbandhuChhotu Ram
University of Science and
Technology, Murthal
DeenbandhuChhotu Ram
University of Science and
Technology, Murthal
UIET, MDU Rohtak
UIET, MDU Rohtak
UIET, MDU Rohtak
IFTM University,
Moradabad
IFTM University,
Moradabad

Page25

S.No.
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107

Dr.Ajoy Kaushik
Dr. R N Gupta
Shri G S Sharma
Shri Masoom Ali Sarwar, IAS

108
109
110
111
112

Ms. Neelam Srivastava

Mr. Alam Siddique
Mr. SampaGuha
Dr. Subhash Mahajahan
Dr. Ashok

113
114
115
116
117
118

Mr. AvinashAmte
Dr. V Gopakumar
Prof A Ravindra Babu
Prof Avnish Jain
Prof S P Sachan
Mr. Samir KantiBhusan

119
120
121
122
123
124
125

Mr. Bijoy Kumar Upadhyay

Prof G S Varadje
Shri G Panneerselvam
Shri Amit Talwar
Dr. Tilak Thakur
Prof B Sampathkumar
Prof Lalkit K Awasthi

126
127
128

Mr. Sham Goyal

Ms. Paras Parashar
Dr. PK Satpathy

129
130
131
132
133
NPIU
134

Name of the Participant

Mr. Satendra Kumar
Mr. H S Khatak
Dr. R P Singh
Prof Ashok Kumar
Ms. S Madhumati IAS
Prof Dr. C Chinnaraj
Dr.Himanshu Agarwal
Prof B K Saha
Mr. Moninder Singh

Shri K P Singh
Dr. V S Purani
Prof UshaNeelakanthan
Shri Manohar G Naik
Mr. Parameshwarappa
Dr. Rita Goyal

Designation

DTE
Project Coordinator
Joint Director, DTE
TEQIP Coordinator
Procurement
Coordinator
SPA
State Nodel Officer
Special Secretary (TE)
&SPA
CPC
Nodal Officer
Accounts officer
SPA
State Project
Coordinator
Head Academic Unit
TEQIP Coordinator
TEQIP Coordinator
Project Coordinator
Nodal Officer
(Procurement & FMR)
Nodel Officer
DTE
DTE
TEQIP Coordinator
TEQIP Coordinator
Principal, JNGEC
Sundernagar
Dy. Director
Professor, CE&T,
Bhubaneshwar
Jt. Director (TE)
Jt Director
Coordinator
OSD
P.O (Academics)
Sr. Consultant
(Academic)

Organization
KIET
NCCE Israna
NCCE Israna
NCCE Israna
SPFU Tamilnadu
SPFU Tamilnadu
SPFU Chhattisgarh
SPFU West Bengal
SPFU Punjab
SPFU Rajasthan
SPFU Jharkhand
SPFU Jharkhand
SPFU Uttar Pradesh
SPFU Uttar Pradesh
SPFU Uttar Pradesh
SPFU West Bengal
SPFU Maharashtra
SPFU Maharashtra
SPFU Maharashtra
SPFU Kerala
SPFU Telangana
SPFU Uttarakhand
SPFU Uttarakhand
SPFU Tripura
SPFU Tripura
SPFU Puducherry
SPFU Puducherry
SPFU Chandigarh
SPFU Chandigarh
SPFU AP
SPFU Himachal Pradesh
SPFU Punjab
SPFU Haryana
SPFU Odisha
SPFU Haryana
SPFU Gujarat
SPFU Gujarat
SPFU Karnataka
SPFU Karnataka
NPIU
Page26

S.No.
Name of the Participant
135 Dr. Narendra D Kulkarni

136
137
138
139
140
141
142

Dr. Yogesh Srivastava

Mr. Anoop Mehrotra
Mr. N S Agnihotri
Mr. Rajkumar Arya
Mr Rajiv Mishra
Mr. Sachin Gupta
Dr. Prakash Chandra Kuniyal

143

Dr. Uma Bansal

144

Ms. Rupali Jha

Designation
Sr.Consultant
(Academic)
Consultant (Academic)
Consultant (Academic)
Consultant (Finance)
Consultant (Finance)
Consultant (Admn)
Consultant
Associate Consultant
(Academic)
Associate Consultant
(Academic)
Associate Consultant
(CS)

Organization
NPIU
NPIU
NPIU
NPIU
NPIU
NPIU
NPIU
NPIU
NPIU

Page27

Annex 2: Results Framework

Indicator

2009-10

2010-2011

Target
Share of supported
programs that are
accredited or applied for

Percentage Faculty with at

least an M. Tech (regular
and contract)

30

45

35

45

2011-2012

Actual
23

2012-2013

2013-14

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

40

29

45

40

50

55

52

63

(Accredited:
9

(Accredited:
13

(Accredited:
11

Applied :14)

Applied :16)

Applied :29)

No. of total
eligible
programs:
2033

No. of total
eligible
programs:
2154

No. of

(Accredited: 16

(Accredited: 16

Applied : 39)

Applied : 47)

No. of total
eligible
programs:
2293

No. of total
eligible
programs: 2429

No. of total
eligible
programs:
2577

No. of

No. of

No. of

No. of

programs
accredited or
applied for:
468

programs
accredited or
applied for:
630

programs
accredited or
applied for:
916

programs
accredited or
applied for:
1340

programs
accredited or
applied for:
1613

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

86.71

50

Total no. of
faculty:
17694

85.95
Total no. of
faculty: 19420

55

86.89

60

Total no. of
faculty:
21592

Contract-1785
Contract-

2014-15**

88.17

86

89.36

Total no. of
faculty: 22476

Total no. of
faculty: 22691

Contract-3110

Contract-3313

Contract-

Page28

Indicator

2009-10

2010-2011

Target

2011-2012

Actual

Target

Actual

2012-2013

Target

1363

32000

Actual

Target

Actual

No. of faculty
with highest
qualification
MTech only:
11590

No. of faculty
with highest
qualification
MTech only:
12598

No. of faculty
with highest
qualification
MTech only:
13021

Contract-786

Contract1245

Contract-1801

Contract-2118

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD: 6620

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD: 6869

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD. 7171

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD: 7220

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD: 7255

Contract-127

Contract-139

Contract-183

Contract-193

Contract-214

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

35265

33000

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

Target

No. of faculty
with highest
qualification
MTech only:
9823

Contract-597

30000

Actual

2014-15**

2555

No. of
faculty with
highest
qualification
MTech only:
8722

Total number of Master

and PhD students

2013-14

37515

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

34000

43464

34000

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

46835

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

40000

37800

No. of
institutions
reporting: 165

Page29

Indicator

2009-10

Number of publications in
refereed journals (within
the field of Engineering)

7032

Percentage of Faculty with

or pursuing M. Tech and
PhD (regular and contract)

63

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-15**

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

7500

11176

8000

15945

8500

17596

9000

19526

14000

7890

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186
63

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

87.56

64

87

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186
68

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

88.14

73

89.67

No. of
institutions
reporting: 145

88

90.88

Total no. of
faculty:
17694

Total no. of
faculty: 19420

Total no. of
faculty:
21592

Total no. of
faculty: 22476

Total no. of
faculty: 22691

No. of
faculty with
highest
qualification
MTech only:
8722

No. of faculty
with highest
qualification
MTech only:
9823

No. of faculty
with highest
qualification
MTech only:
11590

No. of faculty
with highest
qualification
MTech only:
12598

No. of faculty
with highest
qualification
MTech only:
13021

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD: 6620

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD: 6869

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD. 7171

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD: 7220

No of faculty
with highest
qualification
PhD: 7255

No. of
faculty
enrolled in
M.Tech: 151

No. of faculty
enrolled in
M.Tech : 203

No. of faculty
enrolled in
M.Tech: 271

No. of faculty
enrolled in
M.Tech: 337

No. of faculty
enrolled in
M.Tech: 345

No. of
institutions
reporting:

No. of
institutions

No. of
institutions
reporting:

No. of
institutions

No. of
institutions

Page30

Indicator

2009-10

2010-2011

Target

2011-2012

Actual

Target

186

Percentage of externally
funded research and
development projects and
consultancies in total
revenue

Transition rate of all

students from the first year
to the second year of

--

48

Actual

2012-2013

Target

reporting: 186

9.71

9.67

2013-14

Actual

Target

186

Actual

10

13.47

12.68

Total
Revenue:Rs.
258808lacs

Total
Revenue:Rs.
203402lacs

Total
Revenue:Rs.
256975lacs

Revenue
from
externally
funded
research and
development
projects and
consultancies
: Rs.24541
lacs

Revenue from
externally
funded
research and
development
projects and
consultancies:

Revenue
from
externally
funded
research and
development
projects and
consultancies
:Rs.27392
lacs

Revenue from
externally
funded
research and
development
projects and
consultancies:

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting:
180

No. of
institutions
reporting: 180

51

63.36
Total no. of
students in

67.81
Total no. of
students in the

54

Target

reporting: 186

Total
Revenue: Rs.
252545lacs

Rs.25036lacs

2014-15**

Total no. of
students in

reporting: 186

11

--

61

--

Rs.32573lacs

58

67.85

Actual

66.14
Total no. of
students in the

Page31

Indicator

2009-10

2010-2011

Target
under graduate study

Transition rate of students

from disadvantaged
backgrounds from the first
year to second year of
undergraduate study

45

45

2011-2012

Actual

Target

Target

2013-14

Actual

Target

Actual

the first year:

86821

first year:
88936

the first year:

92352

first year:
91721

No. of
students who
transitioned
from the first
year to
second year:
55010

No. of students
who
transitioned
from the first
year to second
year: 60309

No. of
students who
transitioned
from the first
year to
second year:
62664

No. of students
who
transitioned
from the first
year to second
year: 60662

No. of
institutions
reporting:
180

No. of
institutions
reporting: 183

No. of
institutions
reporting:
184

No. of
institutions
reporting: 170

48

59.71
Total no. of
students
from
disadvantaged

backgrounds
in the first
year: 38287
No of
students
from
disadvantage
d
backgrounds

Actual

2012-2013

63.41

51

55

62.25

61.33

Total no. of
students from
disadvantaged
backgrounds in
the first year:
38152

Total no. of
students from
disadvantage
d
backgrounds
in the first
year: 39886

Total no. of
students from
disadvantaged
backgrounds in
the first year:
40508

No. of students
from
disadvantaged
backgrounds
who
transitioned

No. of
students from
disadvantage
d
backgrounds
who

No. of students
from
disadvantaged
backgrounds
who
transitioned

2014-15**

Target

57

Actual

--

Page32

Indicator

2009-10

2010-2011

Target

Direct Beneficiaries
(number)

300,000

300,000

2011-2012

Actual

Target

Actual

2012-2013

Target

2013-14

Actual

Target

Actual

who
transitioned
from the first
year to
second year:
22863

from the first

year to second
year: 24192

transitioned
from the first
year to
second year:
24828

from the first

year to second
year:24842

No. of
institutions
reporting:
180

No. of
institutions
reporting: 183

No. of
institutions
reporting:
184

No. of
institutions
reporting: 170

320,000

372,353

389,439

335,000

350,000

415,949

434,539

2014-15**

Target

Actual

395,000

381,926

Total no. of
student
beneficiaries:
351331

Total no. of
student
beneficiaries:
366413

Total no. of
student
beneficiaries:
390343

Total no. of
student
beneficiaries:
407936

Total no. of
student
beneficiaries:
355099

Total no. of
faculty
beneficiaries:
21022

Total no. of
faculty
beneficiaries:
23026

Total no. of
faculty
beneficiaries:
25606

Total no. of
faculty
beneficiaries:
26601

Total no. of
faculty
beneficiaries:
26827

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

Page33

Indicator

of which female
(percentage)

Percentage of institutions
with academic autonomy

2009-10

26

30

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-14

2014-15**

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

26

28

27

29

28

29

30

29

30

30

40

Total no. of
female
student
beneficiaries:
97819

Total no. of
female student
beneficiaries:
104637

Total no. of
female
student
beneficiaries:
112719

Total no. of
female student
beneficiaries:
119233

Total no. of
female student
beneficiaries:
104870

Total no. of
female
faculty
beneficiaries:
6254

Total no. of
female faculty
beneficiaries :
6972

Total no. of
female
faculty
beneficiaries:
7944

Total no. of
female faculty
beneficiaries:
8235

Total no. of
female faculty
beneficiaries:
8294

No. of
institutions
reporting :
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting:
186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

No. of
institutions
reporting: 186

51

50

57

60

58

65

61

66

65

Total no. of
institutions:
156

Total no. of
institutions:
156

Total no. of
institutions:
190

Total no. of
institutions:
190

Total no. of
institutions:
186

No. of
institutions
with
academic
autonomy:
80

No. of
institutions
with academic
autonomy: 89

No. of
institutions
with
academic
autonomy:
111

No. of
institutions
with academic
autonomy: 115

No. of
institutions
with academic
autonomy: 120

Page34

Indicator

2009-10

2010-2011

Target
Number of faculty
members that have
benefitted from the
teaching effectiveness
training (under subcomponent 1.3)
Share of TEQIP Supported
Engineering Institutions
from lagging states as
agreed by DEA and World
Bank (i.e. Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan,
Jharkhand, Orissa, Uttar
Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh)7

--

2011-2012

Actual

Target

--

--

--

2012-2013

Actual
--

2013-14

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

Target

Actual

--

187

1000

1210 (c)

1500

2000 (c)

No. of
institutions:
70

17.7

20

--

20

--

2014-15**

20

No. of
institutions:
164

No. of
institutions:
186

19

20

19

20

18

Number of governance
self reviews received

--

--

--

--

--

--

65

80

162 (c)

180

184(c)

Number of Governance
Development plans
received

--

--

--

--

--

--

20

38

120

174 (c)

Fully functional MIS Number of institutions

--

--

--

--

--

--

43

150

156

155

173

7
At the time of project approval, the indicator on States lagging in technical education was defined as those that either have only one Engineering Institution or less than
one Engineering Institution per million population as per AICTEs approved list of Engineering Degree Institutions in 2004. As per this definition, the following states are
identified as lagging states in technical education: Nagaland, A&N Islands, Dadra Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, J&K,
Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Tripura, UP and West Bengal. As per this definition, the actual achievement of
Share of TEQIP supported institutions from States lagging in technical education is 24%.

Page35

Indicator

2009-10

2010-2011

Target

2011-2012

Actual

Target

Actual

2012-2013

Target

2013-14

Actual

Target

Actual

2014-15**

Target

Actual

reporting at least 70% of

the indicators

**data entry in progress

Page36

Annex3:5thJRM:PerformanceAssessmentIndicators(UPDATEDason16thJuly2015)

S.N.

Nameof
State/UT

Category

NameofInstitution

Autonomy
(obtainedor
appliedto
UGCwithno
objection
from
university
andstate
government)

MoMofBoG
(last4Months)
publishedon
institution's
website
(Yes/No)

NBAaccreditation
atleast55%
programmesaccredi
ted+appliedfor

Statutory
AuditFY:
201314:
Yes/No

Timelinefor
completionof
governance
developmentplan
and/orinstitutional
governance
guidelines,approved
bygoverningbody
andpublishedon
institution'swebsite

RevisedIDP
publishedon
the
institution's
website

Completion
ofalldata
inputintothe
MIS

Procurement
Plantocover
100%
procurement
expenditure
(Yes/No)

Actual
expenditure
50%of
funds
received:
Yes/No

100%Actual
expenditure
+committed
expenditure
against
funds
received=
Yes/No

No.of
Indicators
Met

Andhra
Pradesh

Private
unaided

SreeVidyanikethan
EngineeringCollege,Chittoor

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Andhra
Pradesh

Govt.

AUCollegeofEngineering,
AndhraUniversity,
Visakhapatnam

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Andhra
Pradesh

Private
unaided

VRSiddharthaEngineering
College,Kanuru,Vijaywada

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Andhra
Pradesh

Private
unaided

AdityaInstituteofTechnology
&Management,Tekkali,
Srikakulam

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Andhra
Pradesh

Private
unaided

ShriVishnuEngineering
Collegeforwomen,
Vishnupur,Bhimavaram

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Andhra
Pradesh

Private
unaided

GayatriVidyaParishadCollege
ofEngineering,
Madhurawada,
Visakhapatnam

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Andhra
Pradesh

Private
unaided

GITAMInstituteofTechnology
GITAMUniversity,
Vishakhapatnam

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Andhra
Pradesh

Private
unaided

MadanapalleInstituteof
Technology&Science,
Madanapalle

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Andhra
Pradesh

Govt.

SVUCollegeofEngineering,
Tirupati

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

10

Andhra
Pradesh

Govt.

JNTUCollegeofEngineering,
Kakinada

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page37

11

Andhra
Pradesh

Govt.

JNTUCollegeofEngineering,
Pulivendula,Kadappa

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

12

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

IIESTShibpur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

13

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

ISMDhanbad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

14

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NERISTItanagar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

15

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITAgartala

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

16

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITAllahabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

17

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITBhopal

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITCalicut

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

19

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITDurgapur

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

20

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITHamirpur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

21

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITJaipur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

22

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITJalandhar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

23

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITJamshedpur

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

24

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITKurukshetra

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

25

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITNagpur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

26

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITPatna

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

27

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITRaipur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Page38

28

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITRourkela

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

29

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITSilchar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

30

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITSurat

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

31

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITSurathkal

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

32

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITTiruchirapally

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

33

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITWarangal

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

34

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

NITTTRChandigarh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

35

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

SchoolofTechnologyAssam
UniversitySilchar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

36

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

SLIETSangrur

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

37

Centrally
Funded
Institutions

CFI

ZHCollegeofEngg&Tech
AMUAligarh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

38

Chhattisgarh

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Bilaspur

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

39

Chhattisgarh

Private
unaided

RungtaCollegeofEngineering
&Technology,Bhilai

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

40

Chhattisgarh

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Jagdalpur,Bastar

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

41

Chhattisgarh

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Raipur

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

42

Gujarat

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Bhavnagar

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

43

Gujarat

Govt.aided

Birla
VishvakarmaMahavidyalaya,
VallabhVidynagar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

44

Gujarat

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Patan,Gujarat

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

45

Gujarat

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Rajkot,Gujarat

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page39

46

Gujarat

Govt.

ShantilalShahEngg.College,
Bhavnagar,Gujarat

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

47

Gujarat

Govt.

LukhidhirjiEngg.College,
Morbi,Gujarat

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

48

Gujarat

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Gandhinagar,Gujarat

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

49

Haryana

Govt.

UniversityInstituteof
Engineering&Technology,
MDU,Rohtak

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

50

Haryana

Private
unaided

N.CCollegeofEngineering,
Panipat

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

51

Haryana

Govt.aided

FacultyofEngineering&
Technology,Guru
JambeshwarUniversityof
Science&Technology,Hissar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

52

Haryana

Govt.

FacultyofScience,
KurukshetraUniversity,
Kurukshetra

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

53

Haryana

Govt.

UniversityInstituteof
Engineering&Technology
(UIET),Kurukshetra
University,Kurukshetra

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

54

Haryana

Govt.

FacultyofEngineering&
Technology,
DeenbandhuChhotuRam
UniversityofScience&
Technology,Murthal,Sonipat

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

55

Himachal
Pradesh

Govt.

JawaharlalNehruGovernment
EngineeringCollege,
Sundernagar,Mandi

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

56

Jharkhand

Govt.aided

BIT,MesraRanchi

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

57

Jharkhand

Private
unaided

CambridgeInstituteof
Technology,Ranchi

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

58

Karnataka

Private
unaided

SiddhagangaInstituteof
Technology,Tumkur,
Karnataka

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

59

Karnataka

Govt.aided

Dr.AmbedkarInstituteof
Technology,Bangalore

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

60

Karnataka

Private
unaided

NitteMeenakshiInstituteof
Technology(NMIT

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

61

Karnataka

Govt.

UniversityVisvesvaraya
CollegeofEngg.,Bangalore

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page40

62

Karnataka

Govt.aided

BVBCollegeofEngineering&
Technology

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

63

Karnataka

Govt.aided

NationalInstituteof
Engineering,Mysore

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

64

Karnataka

Govt.aided

MalnadCollegeof
Engineering,Hassan,
Karnataka

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

65

Karnataka

Govt.aided

BMSCollegeofEngineering,
Bangalore,Karnataka

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

66

Karnataka

Private
unaided

SriSiddharthaInstituteof
Technology,Tumkur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

67

Karnataka

Govt.aided

BasaveshwarEngineering
College(Autonomous)
Bagalkot

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

68

Karnataka

Govt.aided

PEScollegeofengineering
Mandya

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

69

Karnataka

Govt.aided

SriJayachamarajendraCollege
ofEngineering,Mysore

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

70

Karnataka

Private
unaided

PESinstituteoftechnology,
Bangalore

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

71

Karnataka

Govt.aided

PDACollegeofEngineering,
Gulbarga

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

72

Karnataka

Private
unaided

MSRamaiahInstituteof
Technology,Bangalore

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

73

Karnataka

Private
unaided

SDMCollegeofEngineering
andTechnology,Dhavalagiri,
Dharwad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

74

Karnataka

Govt.

SriKrishnarajendraSilver
JubileeTechnologicalInstitute
(SKSJTI)

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

75

Karnataka

Private
unaided

R.V.CollegeofEngineering
(RVCE),Bangalore

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

76

Karnataka

Private
unaided

NMAMInstituteof
Technology,Nitte

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

77

Kerala

Govt.

RajivGandhiInstituteof
Technology,Kottayam

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

78

Kerala

Govt.

GovernmentCollegeof
Engineering,Kannur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page41

79

Kerala

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Thrissur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

80

Kerala

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Kozhikode

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

81

Kerala

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Painavu,Idukki

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

82

Kerala

Govt.

SchoolofEngineering,Cochin
UniversityofScience&
Technology,Cochin

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

83

Kerala

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Bartonhill,
Thiruvananthapuram

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

84

Kerala

Govt.

LBSInstituteofTechnology
forWomen,Poojappura,
Thiruvananthapuram

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

85

Kerala

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering
Perumon,Perinad,Kollam

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

86

Kerala

Govt.aided

CooperativeInstituteof
Technology,Vadakara,
Kozhikode

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

87

Kerala

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering
Trikaripur,Cheemeni,
Kasargod

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

88

Kerala

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering
Thalassery,Kannur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

89

Kerala

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering,
Kidangoor,Kottayam

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

90

Kerala

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering.
College,
wayanadThalappuzha,Kerala

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

91

Kerala

Govt.

ThangalKunjuMusaliarCollege
ofEngineering,Karicode,

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

92

Kerala

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering.
College,Sreekrishnapuram,
Kerala

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

93

Kerala

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering,
Adoor,Manakkala,Kerala

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

94

Kerala

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering,
Karunagappaly,Thodiyoor,
Kollam,Kerala

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

95

Kerala

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering,
Cherthala,Pallippuram,
Alappuzha,Kerala

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page42

96

Madhya
Pradesh

Govt.aided

SamratAshokTechnological
Institute(Engineering
College),Vidisha

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

97

Madhya
Pradesh

Private
unaided

SagarInstituteofResearch&
Technology,Bhopal

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

98

Madhya
Pradesh

Govt.aided

MadhavInstituteof
Technology&Science,
Gwalior

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

99

Madhya
Pradesh

Govt.aided

RajivGandhi
ProudyogikiVishwavidhyalaya,
Bhopal

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

100

Madhya
Pradesh

Govt.aided

ShriGSInstituteof
Technology&Science,Indore

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

101

Maharashtra

Govt.aided

Dr.BabasahebAmbedkar
TechnologicalUniversity,
Lonere,Raigad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

102

Maharashtra

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering,
Shivajinagar,Pune

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

103

Maharashtra

Govt.aided

ShriGuruGobindSinghji
InstituteofEngineering&
Technology,Nanded

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

104

Maharashtra

Govt.aided

WalchandCollegeof
Engineering,Sangli

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

105

Maharashtra

Govt.aided

BVB'sSardarPatelCollegeof
Engineering,Mumbai

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

106

Maharashtra

Govt.

Govt.CollegeofEngineering,
Aurangabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

107

Maharashtra

Govt.aided

VeermataJijabaiTechnological
Institute,Matunga,Mumbai

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

108

Maharashtra

Govt.

GovernmentCollegeof
Engineering,Jalgaon

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

109

Maharashtra

Govt.

Govt.CollegeofEngineering,
Amravati

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

110

Maharashtra

Govt.

GovernmentCollegeof
Engineering,Karad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

111

Maharashtra

Private
unaided

RajarambapuInstituteof
Technology,Islampur,Sangli

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

112

Maharashtra

Govt.aided

InstituteofChemical
Technology,Matunga,
Mumbai

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page43

113

Maharashtra

Private
unaided

BharatiVidyapeethUniversity,
CollegeofEngineering,Pune

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

114

Maharashtra

Private
unaided

GHRaisoniCollegeof
Engineering,Nagpur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

115

Maharashtra

Govt.

GovernmentCollegeof
Enginering,Chandrapur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

116

Maharashtra

Govt.

DepartmentofTechnology,
ShivajiUniversity,Kolhapur,
Maharashtra

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

117

Maharashtra

Govt.

DepartmentofChemical
Technology,North
MaharashtraUniversity,
Jalgaon,Maharashtra

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

118

NCTDelhi

Govt.

DelhiTechnological
University,Delhi

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

119

Odisha

Govt.

CollegeofEngineering&
Technology,Bhubaneshwar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

120

Odisha

Govt.

VeerSurendraSaiUniversity
ofTechnology,Burla,
Sambalpur

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

121

Punjab

Govt.aided

ThaparUniversity,Patiala,
Punjab

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

122

Punjab

Govt.aided

GuruNanakDevEngineering
College,Ludhiana,Punjab

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

123

Punjab

Govt.aided

SBSCollegeofEngineering&
Technology,Ferozpur,Punjab

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

124

Punjab

Private
unaided

ChandigarhEngineering
College,Mohali,Punjab

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

125

Punjab

Govt.aided

BeantCollegeofEngineering
Technology,Gurdaspur,
Punjab

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

126

Punjab

Govt.

GZSPTU,Bhatinda,Punjab

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

127

Rajasthan

Govt.

Govt.EngineeringCollege,
Bikaner,Rajasthan

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

128

Rajasthan

Govt.

UniversityCollegeof
Engineering,RTU,Kota,
Rajasthan

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

129

Rajasthan

Private
unaided

InstituteofEngineering&
Technology,Alwar,Rajasthan

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page44

130

Rajasthan

Govt.

MLVTextile&Engineering
College,Bhilwara,Rajasthan

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

131

Rajasthan

Govt.

CollegeofTechnologyand
Engineering,MaharanaPratap
UniversityofAgricultureand
Technology,Udaipur,
Rajasthan

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

132

Rajasthan

Govt.

GovtEngineeringCollege,
Ajmer,Rajasthan

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

133

Rajasthan

Govt.

CollegeofEngineeringand
Technology,Bikaner,
Rajasthan

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

134

Rajasthan

Govt.

GovernmentWomen
EngineeringCollege,Ajmer,
Rajasthan

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

135

Rajasthan

Govt.

GovernmentEngineering
College,Jhalawar,Rajasthan

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

136

TamilNadu

Govt.

Govt.CollegeofEngineering,
Baragur,Krishnagiri

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

137

TamilNadu

Govt.

Govt.CollegeofTechnology,
Coimbatore

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

138

TamilNadu

Govt.

AlagappaChettiarCollegeof
EngineeringandTechnology,
Karaikudi

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

139

TamilNadu

Govt.

GovernmentCollegeof
Engineering,Salem

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

140

TamilNadu

Govt.

ManonmaniamSundaranar
University,Abishekapatti,
Tirunelveli

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

141

TamilNadu

Govt.

ThiagarajaCollegeof
Engineering,Madurai,Tamil
Nadu

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

142

TamilNadu

Govt.

P.S.GCollegeofTechnology,
Coimbatore,TamilNadu

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

143

TamilNadu

Govt.

BharathidasanInstituteof
TechnologyCampus,
Trichirapalli,TamilNadu

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

144

TamilNadu

Govt.

CoimbatoreInstituteof
Technology,Coimbatore,
TamilNadu

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

145

Telangana

Private
unaided

Aurora'sScientific,
Technological&Research
Academy,Bandlaguda,
Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page45

146

Telangana

Govt.

JNTUHCollegeofEngineering,
Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

147

Telangana

Govt.

UniversityCollegeof
Engineering,Osmania
University,Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

148

Telangana

Govt.

UniversityCollegeof
Technology,Osmania
University,Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

149

Telangana

Private
unaided

AnuragEngineeringCollege,
Kodad,Nalgonda

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

150

Telangana

Private
unaided

ChaitanyaBharathiInstitute
ofTechnology,Gandipet,
Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

151

Telangana

Private
unaided

GokarajuRangarajuInstitute
ofEngineering&Technology,
Kukatpally,Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

152

Telangana

Private
unaided

VasaviCollegeofEngineering,
Ibrahimbagh,Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

153

Telangana

Private
unaided

VallurupalliNageswaraRao
VignanaJyothiInstituteof
Engg.&Technology,
Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

154

Telangana

Private
unaided

MallaReddyEngineering
College,Medchal,R.R.
District,Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

155

Telangana

Private
unaided

SreenidhiInstituteofScience
&Technology,Ghatkesar,
Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

156

Telangana

Govt.

UniversityCollegeof
Engineering,Kakatiya
University,Kothagudem

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

157

Telangana

Govt.

JNTUInstituteofScience
&Technolgy,Hyderabad

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

158

Tripura

Govt.

TripuraInstituteof
Technology,Narsingarh,
Tripura

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

159

UTChandigarh

Govt.

PECUniversityofTechnology,
Chandigarh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

160

UTChandigarh

Govt.

UniversityInstituteof
Engineering&Technology,
Chandigarh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

161

UTChandigarh

Govt.

Dr.S.S.BhatnagarUniversity
InstituteofChemical
EngineeringandTechnology
UICET),PunjabUniversity,
Chandigarh,UTChandigarh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page46

162

UTPuducherry

Govt.

PondicherryEngineering
College,Puducherry

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

163

UttarPradesh

Govt.

InstituteofEngineering&
Technology,Lucknow,Uttar
Pradesh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

164

UttarPradesh

Govt.

MadanMohanMalviya
EngineeringCollege,
Gorakhpur,UttarPradesh

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

165

UttarPradesh

Private
unaided

SchoolofEngineering&
Technology,IFTMUniversity,
LodhipurMoradabad,Uttar
Pradesh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

166

UttarPradesh

Govt.aided

HarcourtButlerTechnological
Institute,(HBTI),Kanpur,
UttarPradesh

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

167

UttarPradesh

Govt.aided

FacultyofEngineeringand
Technology,M.J.P.Rohilkhand
University,Bareilly,Uttar
Pradesh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

168

UttarPradesh

Govt.aided

BundelkhandInstituteof
Engg.&Technology,Jhansi,
UttarPradesh

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

169

UttarPradesh

Govt.aided

KamlaNehruInstituteof
Technology,Sultanpur,Uttar
Pradesh

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

170

Uttarakhand

Govt.aided

GovindBallabhPant
EngineeringCollege,
PauriGarhwal

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

171

Uttarakhand

Govt.

VCTKumaonEngineering
College,Dwarahat,Dist
Almora

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

172

Uttarakhand

Govt.aided

CollegeofTechnologyGB
PantUniversityofAgriculture
&Technology,Pantnagar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

173

WestBengal

Govt.aided

BirbhumInstituteof
Engineering&Technology,
Birbhum

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

174

WestBengal

Private
unaided

JISCollegeofEngineering,
Nadia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

175

WestBengal

Private
unaided

HeritageInstituteof
Technology,Kolkata

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

176

WestBengal

Govt.aided

CollegeofEngineering&
Management,Kolaghat

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

177

WestBengal

Private
unaided

M.C.K.VInstituteof
Engineering,Howrah

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Page47

178

WestBengal

Govt.

UniversityInstituteof
Technology,TheUniversityof
Burdwan,Burdwan

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

179

WestBengal

Govt.aided

BankuraUnnayaniInstituteof
Engineering,Bankura

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

180

WestBengal

Govt.aided

WestBengalUniversityof
Technology,Kolkata

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

181

WestBengal

Govt.

UniversityCollegeof
TechnologyUniversityof
Calcutta,Kolkata

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

182

WestBengal

Govt.aided

FacultyofEngineeringand
TechnologyJadavpur
University,Kolkata

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

183

WestBengal

Private
unaided

NarulaInstituteof
Technology,Pargnas

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

184

WestBengal

Govt.aided

RCCInstituteofInformation
Technology,Kolkata

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

185

WestBengal

Govt.aided

GovtCollegeofEngineering
andTextile&Technology,
Berhampore,WestBengal

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

186

WestBengal

Govt.aided

MurshidabadCollegeof
EngineeringandTechnology,
Berhampore,Murshidabad,
WestBengal

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

171

177

142

186

180

178

174

185

180

182

Totalno.ofinstitutionsthatachievedthe
particularindicator

Page48

Annex 4: State Visit Reports

State Visits: July 7-9, 2015

TEQIP JRM Rajasthan visit 7 to 9 July 2015

Governance. The situation in Rajasthan has been difficult, with Boards of Governors not
appointed or reconstituted following the end of terms of some members and with principals
for most government colleges not appointed for the past two years.
This means of course that the Governance Self-Reviews and Governance Development Plans
have not in fact been prepared, since there have been no governing body meetings to review
and discuss them. It also means that minutes of recent BoG meetings cannot have been posted
on the institutions respective websites. These Performance Indicators have therefore not
been met.
However, in the last few weeks significant movement has been noted: the BoGs have been
formed (in all but 2 cases), the Chairs (all educationalists) have been appointed and the
principals are now in place. It is also noteworthy that the BoGs are for the whole institution,
not just for TEQIP activities. Unfortunately, no BoG meetings have been held because the
colleges have been waiting for the Minister to give some dates when the meetings can be
held. The Minister is not on the BoG, but is the President of each of the Societies under
which the Colleges are formed. The last time BoG meetings were held, the Minister presided
over a collective meeting with all BoGs present. Fortunately, the SPFU has now written to all
institutions to tell them to hold BoG meetings.
The colleges reported that there has been an almost complete turnover of the members of the
BoG. The World Bank promised that if a one-day meeting of the Chairs and the Principals is
organized, the NPIU/World Bank will ensure that appropriate experts are available to provide
training on good governance.
Autonomy and NBA progress. These are major hurdles. Again, however, there has been
progress very recently. The Rajasthan Technical University had not taken any action of the
applications of the various colleges for autonomy, because the University was debating
whether it had the power to grant autonomy and under what conditions. The University has
now passed a Resolution to this effect and colleges can now apply formally to the University
for autonomy. In discussions with RTU, the University indicated that decisions on autonomy
could be made within 3 months.
Colleges in Rajasthan have applied to NBA for course accreditation. However, the response
from NBA has been very slow. However, not all colleges have prepared their self-assessment
reports.

Page49

Finances. Some colleges have received 6 crores while others only 3 crores; first releases
were only towards the end of calendar year 2013. At the present rate of spending, the colleges
will not spend all their respective allocations, especially if all the Performance Indicators are
required to be met. The SPFU requested that the indicator on autonomy is waived on the
grounds that this was not in control of the colleges so that additional releases could be
made.
The JRM team also flagged the likelihood that a date will be set by which point all
procurement must be completed. During the discussion:

The colleges argued that this should be 31st March 2016 at the earliest.
They asked what will happen if a college cannot spend all its original allocation
(10/12.5 crores as the case may be); will they still be able to spend 55% of the original
allocation on procurement or only 55% on the money actually spent? [To date, the
colleges have been advised that they need not limit their spending on any particular
category against any releases, subject to maintaining the prescribed limits at the end
of the project. This advice of course was predicated on the assumption that colleges
will spend all their allocation.]
Clarity is needed on what counts as completed, i.e., commitment made in the form
of a contract or all payments made (or something in between).
Colleges requested additional training from NPIU on procurement and financial
management issues and reported difficulties contracting with experts from the PMSS.

Four Funds. Most TEQIP colleges have been depositing funds into four accounts. To date no
discussion has taken place in the colleges or the state about how to use these funds following
the project. It was noted during the discussion that different colleges may wish to use their
funds in different ways, in line with decisions made in the respective BoG (and subject to the
overall requirement to use the funds to sustain activities initiated under TEQIP II).
Placement rates. All colleges reported low overall placement rates. However, it became
clear during the discussion that different colleges were using different definitions (for
example, whether including off-campus placements or those pursuing post-graduate courses).
The NPIU has recently issued guidelines for more consistent college of placement data.
Affiliation system. Discussions with the Rajasthan Technical University raised the following
issues:

The number of affiliating colleges has been declined, due to over-capacity in the
sector. RTU expects this number to continue to fall over the next several years, to
below 100 from the present around 130. Only a very few colleges have been deaffiliated since RTU was established in 2006.
RTU will launch in July a faculty registration portal, with the aim to ensure the
quality of faculty in colleges. Where the RTU nominee on the college selection board
says, the faculty member will be deemed duly selected.
RTU has conducted a 10-day pedagogy training programme; it wishes to increase the
number of such programmes to reach more faculty. There are about 15,000 faculty
across the colleges affiliated to the University.

Page50

RTU is planned to introduce a system to rate colleges. It does not at present publish
the pass rates of examinations.
RTU is developing its Statutes. It is anticipated that permanent affiliation will be
possible under the new Statutes.

Other issues.

GEC Jahalawar they have not been able to schedule mentoring or PA due to
unavailability of mentors/PAs.
Ajmer mentor has only visited once.
Pedagogical training colleges reported varying success in finding good training on
pedagogy. SPFU should organize a sharing of information and different colleges
experiences.
Alwar IIT Delhi has not responded to request for participation in quality circle
Student assistantships colleges asked for clarity as to whether assistantships could
be provided to PhD students (Masters Students can receive assistantships only if the
course is accredited, but PhD courses are not accredited).

Recommendations

Colleges to apply to the university to support their request for autonomy. RTU to
decide within 3 months.

NPIU to follow up with NBA to review status of pending applications and seek to
expedite them.

Colleges to prepare self-assessment reports for NBA as necessary

NPIU/MHRD to consider the date by which all procurement must be completed, and
notify SPFUs and colleges
NPIU to organize further training on procurement and financing management
Colleges to ensure all required resources are deposited in the four funds.
Colleges to discuss guidelines for the management of these funds, and SPFU to issue
guidelines (as per PIP requirement), including the discretion available to individual
colleges.
NPIU to clarify the use of the four funds for those colleges which participated in
TEQIP I (and built up funds under that project). At present, these funds are not being
used.

It was agreed that all colleges with BoGs in place, would hold BoG meetings in July,
with one agenda item to schedule BoG meetings for the remaining of the academic
year
Government of Rajasthan to constitute the BOGs of the remaining two government
colleges
SPFU/colleges to organize a one-day orientation session on good governance for BoG
Chairs and College Principals. NPIU/World Bank will identify experts to facilitate
this session as needed.
BoGs to discuss good governance programme documents, and prepare and approve
the governance self-assessment, development plan and institutional guidelines.

Page51

All colleges to collect and report placement data as per the NPIU guidelines. Colleges
can then discuss how to improve these rates.
NPIU to organize events to discuss good practice in placement, especially for colleges
in rural areas

Page52

State Visit to Telangana July 7-9, 2015

State level project implementation
A State Steering Committee (SSC) has very recently been established to supervise the
project implementation at the state level. The Principal Secretaries for Education and
Finance; the Commissioner, Technical Education; the SPFU coordinator; a MHRD
representative; two industry representatives and a group of five academics are members.
The SSC meets quarterly to review project implementation. Institutions that needed to
improve their performance against TEQIP benchmarks were identified and their
Principals/Directors were invited to the SSC meetings to discuss action plans.
The SSC is exploring means to extend TEQIP best practices to non-TEQIP institutions.
Disbursement of funds from the state treasury is a bottleneck. Some institutions are yet to
receive funds disbursed by the NPIU in December 2014.
Suggestions
The Commissioner, TE suggested benchmarks and incentives for state government
performance in addition to institutional performance in TEQIP III.
The SSC is a possible vehicle at the state level for having a smoother implementation of
TEQIP III with better possibilities of systemic reform and improvement of all engineering
colleges in the state.
Affiliating universities
After the formation of the State, regular Vice Chancellors (VC) have not yet been
appointed at all three universities to which TEQIP institutes in the State are affiliated. The
Government of Telangana was aiming for a new university act but realized that it would
be too big a task and has now opted for amendments to the Universities Act. In the
meantime, cadre IAS officers have been designated as Vice Chancellors in-charge with
additional responsibility. The Government is very well aware of this fact and shall take
steps in appointing regular VCs as soon as possible.
The absence of regular VCs in the universities has indeed impacted the administrative
processes, in particular, related to the appointment of faculty and applications for granting
autonomy to affiliated colleges.
Interestingly, the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University is systematically assessing
all its affiliated colleges against infrastructure, equipment, and student-teacher ratio norms.
As a result, about 40 colleges have had their affiliation withdrawn and cannot admit new
students until they meet these norms. It is expected that the inspections will lead to
additional engineering colleges being weeded out. The State Government has realised that
there are too many engineering colleges with too many seats in Telangana.
Suggestions
Expedite the appointment of the search/selection committees for appointment of VCs with
representation from all stakeholders.

Page53

 Encourage affiliating universities to develop a mentoring relationship with affiliated

colleges. Universities should facilitate the development of colleges with a focus on quality
and not be limited to a compliance-monitoring role.
Extend the full range of UGC autonomy benefits to autonomous colleges, including
autonomy in appointing faculty in accordance with UGC and state government policy.
Placements and employability
Placement rates for undergraduate students range from 65-90%. Postgraduate placement
rates remain low, 30% on an average.
Most of the institutions have placed a great deal of emphasis on soft skills training and
have conducted finishing schools. Some institutions conduct such types of schools in the
2nd year of the UG program.
Institutions commented that having industry representatives on their BoGs/BoS has
certainly improved their placement records.
There appears to be inconsistency in generating placement records from one institution to
other. Many of the institutions indicated that a large number of students opted for higher
studies abroad and starting of their own businesses.
The institutions have been taking measures to improve the placement records but the
quality of placement in terms of salary packages type of job etc. remain low.
The State Govt. is in the process of establishing a committee with representation from
various govt. departments, academia and industry to identify skill gaps and facilitate
employability training. The Chief Secretary will be the Chair of this committee.
Suggestions
Encourage PG students to work with industry to develop topics for their Masters projects.
At the UG level, the institutes may consider embedding mandatory internships during
summers or for full semester into their curricula.
Establish alumni tracking systems to obtain feedback on employability and skill gaps.
Create forums for feedback from industry.
Adopt a uniform definition for placement rates and specify data collection processes.
Strengthen linkages by encouraging industry to co-sponsor student researchers who work
in relevant areas.
Diversify target companies beyond IT to core-engineering firms.
Institutes were suggested to have network meetings amongst themselves and adopt best
practices existing in each of the institutes regarding improvement in the placements in
their own institute.
The performance of TEQIP colleges and Centres of Excellence (CoE)
Most colleges in the state are performing well and have met all benchmarks for the 5th
JRM.
All the institutions visited (OUCOE, JNTU IST and GRIET) had good research projectsin
several areas and were able to attract government sponsored research projects with a
number of active faculty and student researchers.

Page54

 The University College of Engineering, Kakatiya, has met only 5 indicators and is on the
weeding out list. Half of the faculty has been transferred out. These vacancies have not
been filled due the absence of a permanent vice-chancellor. This has made the college
ineligible for autonomy and NBA accreditation. The PS, Education said that this would be
look at as a matter of urgency and efforts will be taken to support the Kakatiya college to
meet its benchmarks by August 31 2015.
Both Centres of Excellence (JNTUH and OU) have not made any significant progress in
meeting their research targets and have not been able to manage the equipment
procurement process. There is lack of leadership with no permanent CoE coordinators
designated. In its last meeting, the SSC took note of the issues concerning CoEs and will
now call a meeting to work with the two colleges to improve their performance.
Suggestions
The State Governments should encourage and support engineering colleges to
commercialise research projects, engage in industry consultancies and develop selfsustaining research programs. An initiative such as Chandigarh Region Innovation and
Knowledge Cluster (http://crikc.puchd.ac.in) could be envisaged as a possible part of the
Chief Secretarys Skills Development Initiative in Telangana.
Given the poor performance of the CoEs in Telangana, it would be a good idea to do a
thorough evaluation of the CoEs under TEQIP II. CoEs should have one highly
competent coordinator who are actively leading the CoEs research project. Greater
interaction with the TEQIP mentors is also required.
CoEs should be exposed to the best practices at top research institutions through
collaboration, exchanges and visits.
Four Funds
Colleges have substantial reserves in the four funds with a median value of approximately
1 crore.
Many of the colleges have drawn plans to use the four funds to continue their project
activities beyond October 2016 whereas some need clarity and are in the process of
making plans. In some cases, the respective BoG has already approved these plans.
Several colleges raised queries about whether funds marked for one purpose could be
diverted to another. In particular, colleges that have not purchased equipment would like
to redeploy their ERF and MF.
After the end of TEQIP II, some institutions expressed uncertainty about to which extend
the institutions can decide on how to spend the funds.

Page55

State Visit to Uttar Pradesh: July 7-9, 2015

This note begins by summarizing discussions on project progress, where after it describes
outcomes of on consultations along the following themes: (1) the affiliation system; (2)
AFRC functioning and (3) recommendations for reform. Annex 1 provides a list of people/
institutes who were part of the discussion.
I. Project progress
1) Four funds: All the institutes have been setting money aside into the four funds, with
considerable variation across colleges. KNIT, Sultanpur is the only college that
mentioned forming a committee to determine how the four funds will be used.
2) Masters and PhD admissions: Uttar Pradesh Technical University (UPTU) is
responsible for admissions at the post-graduate level. In general, there are
considerable delays in the process, as the result of which prospective applicants
have lost interest in applying to UP colleges.
3) Autonomy: All the TEQIP-funded government colleges, namely IET, Lucknow
(constituent college), HBTI Kanpur, KNIT Sultanpur, MMM Gorakhpur, and BIET
Jhansi have academic autonomy, which allows them to design their own curriculum
as well as conduct examinations. However, the affiliated government colleges at
Banda, Bijnor, Azamgarh and Ambedkar Nagar that were started four years ago and
the associated government colleges at Kanauj&Mainpuri ( mentored by HBTI
Kanpur) and Sonbhadra (mentored by KNIT Sultanpur) do not have academic
autonomy which means that their curriculum and examinations are under the control
of UP Technical University.
4) Role of Board of Governors: In Uttar Pradesh, the Board is subordinate to the state
government, in that all proposals to the Board can only be made after the state
government approves the proposal. The vice chairman of the Board is the Principal
Secretary, Technical Education.
5) Accreditation: As of now, none of the TEQIP institutions of Uttar Pradesh has
NBA affiliation of any of its programs, though all (but two) of them have applied for
affiliation of their eligible programs and are awaiting further action on the part of
AICTE.
6) FM Issues: SPFU had to extend the contract of internal auditors for one year for audit
of FY 2014-15. The audit should normally be done for Apr-Sep and Oct-March. The
report of internal audit should be available before the start of statutory audit. Both the
audits have to cover all the institutes. Regular and timely internal audit is helpful for
identifying any discrepancies in following FM procedures and taking remedial
actions. There has been a problem with delay in approval of extension of contract of
internal auditor. The extension was approved only on July 7, 2015. It is necessary to
appoint auditors for each year on time in future so that six-monthly internal
audit is done immediately after the end of each such period. This will also ensure
that statutory audit is not delayed as internal audit reports will be available on time.

Page56

7) Other issues impacting TEQIP performance:

a. Delay in declaration of results of admission tests: UPTU conducts the UP
State Entrance Examinations (UPSEE) for admission into all programs in all
engineering colleges in Uttar Pradesh. Delays in declaring results, has often
meant that applicants leave UP for another state. This year, examination
results for Bachelors program was declared on time.
b. Faculty shortage: All colleges noted high vacancy rates (on average, 40%).
Between 1998 and 2014 the state government froze the amount of funds it
gave to government colleges in nominal terms. At the same time, colleges
noted that they were unable to raise fees freely. As a result, funding for
salaries has been meagre, making it difficult to attract permanent faculty. The
government has recently increased its fund allocation to colleges, and the
mission team was informed that recruitments will take place shortly. (Faculty
recruitment is undertaken by individual colleges/universities and is not
dependent upon the public service commission.)
c. Curriculum revision: At present, there is a complete overhaul of the
curriculum. It is a
continuous process, wherein the syllabus is reviewed
year-wise starting from the First Year, so that the cycle is completed and
repeated every four years. However, its timing is poor as it does not allow
colleges time to train faculty or stock their libraries in time for implementation
of the curriculum.
d. New colleges: Three new (buildingless) colleges have been started, two of
which have been assigned to HBTI, Kanpur for mentoring, and the third to
KNIT, Sultanpur. The mentor colleges complained of shortage in faculty in
their own colleges, and felt that it was difficult for them to also meet the needs
of new colleges. The mission team discussed this issue with the state
government, and were informed that mentor colleges are free to assign guest
faculty in the new colleges.
II. Affiliation system
Uttar Pradesh has one affiliating technical university, UPTU, which was set up in 2002.
UPTU has four constituent colleges and affiliates 639 colleges (only 10 are government).
UPTU has three departments: finance; registrar; and examinations. It has a fulltime ViceChancellor. Its three departments are headed by full-time permanent staff on deputation.
Important features include:
1) Understaffed: It has no permanent positions, other than those noted above. All
committees and other staff associated with the departments have this job as additional
charge.
2) Splitting and merging: UPTU was split into two universities in 2010, with the new
university located in NOIDA and the old one remaining in Lucknow. In 2013, the
NOIDA university was closed, as it was felt that having two universities perform the

Page57

affiliation function was leading to excessive lobbying for resources and dilution in
standards.
3) Funding source: The state government does not fund UPTU; its sources of revenue
comprise affiliation fees, closure fees, examination fees and degree fees.
UPTU engages with engineering colleges in the following areas: affiliation and closure;
admissions; curriculum and examinations; and awarding degrees. Key points in each include:
1. Affiliation and closure
a.
All government colleges are affiliated permanently once when they are
opened after AICTE clearance and no renewal is required.
b. For private institutions, affiliation happens upon clearance from AICTE. One
time fees are Rs 15 lakhs; annual renewal costs Rs 50,000. Renewal is annual,
since that is what is required from AICTE and UPTU just follows accordingly.
c. Affiliation is currently being conducted through an online process. This year
15 private colleges were affiliated in this manner, and affiliations were completed
before the start of counselling.
d. Affiliation requirements and norms are not always met; yet, colleges receive
affiliation suggesting problems in implementation.
Closure: If a college wants to close, it needs to take permission from the state and
apply to UPTU with a fee of Rs 50,000. Last year 20 private colleges were
closed; this year five have already been closed. Closure is done in a phased
manner so students do not suffer.
2. Admissions
a. UPSEE is managed by a committee comprising faculty from constituent
colleges.
b. UPTU also manages the counselling process, whereby students are admitted
to colleges based upon a match between the students choice and what he/she
is eligible for, based upon his/her score in the entrance examinations.
However, although over 1 lakh students took examinations this year, only 30%
went through the counselling process. The reasons for this include:
i.
System and server problems, whereby the names of certain colleges were
incorrectly displayed, and/ or the server was down at various points.
ii.
Allowing direct admission in private colleges: Private colleges are allowed
to admit students even if they do not go through the counselling process,
so long as students meet the state governments eligibility criteria for
admission. Interviews suggested that private colleges offer freebies to lure
students, many of who are eligible for government scholarships. In this
way, private colleges are able to fill seats and stay financially viable.

Page58

3. Curriculum and examinations

a. Curriculum revision has generally been superficial, except for a recent
exercise of revamping the curriculum entirely. Further, this exercise should
have been initiated by the university, but instead was done at the Principle
Secretarys initiative. UPTU charges fees for the following exam based
issues: (i) entrance examinations for all students (ii) regular annual fees for
some semester examinations in non autonomous colleges (Rs 6500 per year),
which include all private colleges, the bulk of colleges, and (iii) revaluation of
examination papers.
b. As discussed previously, there have been several hiccups in the counselling
process, which has compromised the efforts to keep the admission system fair
and transparent.
4. Awarding degrees
a. UPTU is mandated with awarding degrees to all students in engineering in the
state.
b. There were no complaints about delays in awarding degrees.
III. Functioning of the AFRC
1. UPTU financially supports the AFRC, but that is the extent of its involvement.
2. There was lack of consensus on whether the AFRC process for determining fees is
indeed fair and transparent. While the bulk of costs in all colleges is salaries, we were
informed that private colleges rarely pay the salary mandated by norms, indicating
that their salary costs are unlikely to be the bulk of their costs.
3. There was concern from the state government that the formula used by the AFRC was
cost based, and encouraged inefficiencies by discouraging colleges from reducing
their costs.
4. There was concern from the Directors of private institutions regarding irregular
working of the AFRC and it was pointed out that the AFRC had not held a meeting in
the last two years. This was countered in meetings at UPTU.
IV. Recommendations for reform
1. UPTU is planning a teacher training institute in NOIDA and has initiated a dialogue
with IIT Kanpur to conduct some sessions. Going forward, it sees its role as
providing teachers in all engineering colleges to be trained on a regular basis.
2. UPTU has also been conducting jobs fairs to help with student placement, and expects
to play this role more actively going forward.
3. All admissions should be through the counselling process as direct admissions have
generated a series of problems and corruption. It is important for the counselling
process to be simplified and made more user friendly.
4. Government colleges should be allowed to charge higher fees, and this can be built
into their performance parameters.
5. Building a personnel management system is important, since promotions are
frequently delayed due to internal institute level politics, and this is demotivating to
faculty.
6. UPTU should be mandated to use some percentage of the fees from affiliation for the
capacity development of colleges.

Page59

7. Merger possibilities should be explored. Some colleges in Lucknow and Kanpur have
merged on their own initiative.

State Visit to West Bengal: July 7-9, 2015

Overview
A total of 14 institutions in the state of West Bengal are participating in TEQIP-II. SPFU
confirmed that all participating institutions have met the previously agreed nine Performance
Agreement Indicators (PAI). Regarding the use of funds nearly 68% of the total allocation
(81% of released amount) has been utilized and it is expected that the remaining funds will be
utilized by project closing.
1) General observations:
a. In general, it is being seen a significant commitment both from the state
government and the participating institutions.
b. It is observed the existence of a process towards strengthening of a still
informal network of institutions and their representatives that can be highly
instrumental in the future. Credit is due to SPFU and its leadership.
c. It is in place a comprehensive operationalization of the project. A significant
reason seems to be associated with stability on the continued leadership of
SPFU since the inception of TEQIP-I.
d. In general, institutions are eager to comply with the performance indicators
established under TEQIP-II although there are perceived limitations in the way
that such indicators reflect real progress attained by them.
e. Overall expenditures in the project is around 80 percent in comparison with
original budget. It is expected to achieve 100 percent within the project
closure. In procurement, more than 90 percent is committed and it is expected
that it will be completed 100 percent during procurement extension period.
f. Government and institutional representatives express high expectations
regarding participation on a potential TEQIP-III initiative, and indicate
reservations about perceived limitations on the current project.

2) Specific observations:
a. Differential levels of participation. It was observed that the performance of
the affiliating universities was the weak - high faculty vacancies, lower
transition rate, BOG meetings not held frequently. Several but not consistent
reasons for limited compliance with PAI are being mentioned by institutional
representatives. In some cases, an apparent compliance with the agreed
performance is achieved, but with poor results or, at last, limited evidence of
its impact. A good example is the case of Jadhavpur University where
although it has met the PAI for faculty training, only one faculty has attended
the pedagogical training and only two have attended MCEP.

Page60

b. Limitations in the Faculty Training and Development: Timing of training,

course content were reasons given by some institutions for not attending the
training. It was also expressed that pedagogy training under TEQIP-II
(usually 3 days) does not give them the credit for career advancement
(minimum 5 days training gives the credit whereas they do not get credit for
three days training!)
c. Employability: In general, it was observed that the salaries of PG students
were lower than UG students. The institutions attribute this to weaker students
joining the PG programs and good performers from UG programs moving to
centrally funded institutions/ IITs.
d. Transition rates. In general, the transition rate is high (80s and 90s) in all
institutions except for Jadhavpur University where the transition rate is in the
70s.
e. Autonomy: A significant delay in the process towards obtaining an
institutional autonomous status is prevalent. A main reason being expressed by
institutional and government representatives is that such process cannot be
expedited due to the fact that a requisite for achieving autonomy is to have the
institution complying with the accreditation requirements. Currently, six
institutions out of fourteen are accredited and one additional institution is
expected to be accredited soon (visit from UGC completed). Accreditation
requirement was recurrently mentioned as the bottleneck by the remaining
institutions for not obtaining/applying for autonomy.
f. MIS: A significant contribution towards the development of institutional
capacity under TEQIP-II is the implementation of MIS. The general
perception of institutional representatives is that it is a useful tool to gather
and have available consistent information, especially considering that nearly
all institutions have no other MIS other than the TEQIP MIS. While some
operational problems are in place (for instance a couple of institutions had
issues with MIS as the data entered was erased), few institutions mentioned
that they also use the TEQIP MIS for other reporting purposes NBA,
districts reports etc.
3) Specific recommendations:
a. Faculty development: Reviewing the effectiveness of the current
arrangement for faculty pedagogical training, and establishing more flexible
mechanisms towards achievement of agreed goals at the institutional level.
b. Accreditation: Discussing with NBA ways in which the accreditation process
can be expedited without compromising its integrity.
c. MIS: Sustainability of TEQIS MIS beyond the life cycle of the project was a
concern raised and needs to be addressed.
d. International Training for Faculty: Now that all the institutions have met
the PAIs, institutions requested if the approval authority for participation in
international conferences/ training could be decentralized to BOG for all of
them.

Page61

e. Student Fee: Fees for students in government colleges has remained the same
since 2008, limiting capacity of institutions to diversify sources of support for
operational expenditures and expansion. A discussion about alternative
pathways towards institutional diversification of funds seems adequate.
f. Strengthening of the institutional network: Efforts can be fostered in order
to further strengthen the network of institutions participating in the project,
and to further conduct transversal analysis of overall impact of the project,
good practices and lessons learned.
g. Completion of the project: Institutions to focus on activities for 100 percent
fund utilisation. Enter all expenditure related to procurement in PMSS system
for bridging the gap between PMSS and FMR figures.

Page62

Annex 5: Action Taken Report (status of4th JRM recommendations)

S.No.
1.

ACTIONS

COMPLIANCE

MHRD to contact 19 low

performing institutions that
have consistently not met
the
performance
benchmarks.
Nineteen low performing
institutions to meet the 11
performance benchmarks.

Due intimation to 19 low performing institutions was

sent to comply with all the performance benchmarks
by 31st March 2015 along with indication that noncompliance of the same would result in weeding out
from the Project.
As on 28th May 2015, the status is as below:
2 institutions achieved: 10 indicators
4 institutions : 9 indicators
3 institutes : 8 indicators
3 institutes : 7 indicators
3 institutes : 5 indicators
2 institutes : 3 indicators
2 institutes : 1 indicator
These institutions were also advised to seek
additional guidance from their Mentors for early
compliance of the benchmarks. Moreover visits by
NPIU officials to some of these institutions were also
undertaken.
The matter of weeding out consistently low
performing institutions was put up before the 10th
NSC meeting held on 28th May 2015.
Decisions:
4 institutions (2each from the State of Punjab and
Bihar) meeting less than 5 indicators have been
weeded out from the Project.
13 institutions achieving 5 or more than 5
indicators were given time till 31st August 2015
failing which these institutions would stand
weeded out from the Project.
MHRD has given approval for providing additional
resources to well-performing institutions. However
the decision of EFC is pending for final approval.

Mentors
to
provide
additional
support
and
guidance to 19 lowperforming institutions.

2.

Decision on removing lowperforming institutions from

the project if they are unable
to achieve eleven of the
October 2014 benchmarks.

3.

Pursue recommendation on
providing additional
resources to wellperforming institutions
(cabinet approval)

Page63

ACTIONS

COMPLIANCE

4.

A further set of parameters

to be given to institutions to
be met

5.

Review of institutional
performance against the set
of parameters

All institutions were informed about further set of

indicators to be complied by 30th April 2015. These
are:
Autonomy granted by UGC / Applied for:
Board of Governors (BoG) meetings:
Accreditation (atleast 55%)(Obtained / Applied
for) for eligible UG&PG prog:
Statutory Audit completed (2013-14):
Completion of Governance Development Plan
(GDP) and timeline for completion of
institutional Governance guidelines, approved by
governing body and published on institutional
website
Submission of revised IDP for 2016 with updated
target indicators
Completion of all data entry into MIS for 201314
Procurement Plan to cover 100% procurement
expenditures in PMSS
% of Expenditure against total funds received
(atleast 50%)
% of Expenditure + Committed expenditure
against Total funds received should be 100%
Institutions performance assessment was carried out
on 9 parameters:

S.No.

The assessment analysis is as follows:

Conduct next JRM

7. Regularly monitor TEQIP
institutions engagement and
outcomes of the online
course on Good
Governance.
S.No.
ACTIONS
6.

8.

New Performance
benchmark to be included

9 indicators: 122
8 indicators: 40
7 indicators: 15
6 indicators: 09

To be decided
Ongoing process

COMPLIANCE
To be decided

Page64

9.

on Good Governance
Work with UGC in fast
tracking the pending
applications

10. Inform institutions the

possibility of suggesting 5-6

members for the
appointment of UGC
representatives for the
Board of Governors at
TEQIP institutions.
11. Good Governance Learning
Workshop for CFIs
12. Continue mentoring in its

current form
13. Next Performance Audit
14. Publicly disclose the

performance audits.

15. Release non-performing

mentors and performance

auditors
16. Identify additional mentors/
performance auditors by
contacting IIT Directors
17. Two additional on-site visits
by the already identified
peer-reviewers undertaken
during the remaining period
of TEQIP II
18. Common evaluation
template should be
developed in collaboration
with the peer-reviewers that
would be used in the
performance assessment of
the CoEs

A meeting was held with Joint Secretary, UGC for

expediting the cases of pending applications for
Autonomy. Also, the status of all applications was
obtained.
5-6 Academicians at the level of Associate Professor
and above were invited from all 190 institutions and
the nominations received were forwarded to UGC for
appointment of UGC representatives for the Board of
Governors at TEQIP institutions as and when
required by Institutions.
Learning Forum on Good Governance Leadership and
Management was held on 4th& 5th May 2015.
Representatives of 24 CFIs participated.
Being continued
One Performance Audit is planned tentatively
between January July 2016.
Action has been taken. Reports are being reviewed.
Out of the 100 reports already reviewed, 32 reports of
the respective institutions graded as A were
informed for disclosure of the Audit Reports on their
institutions website.
Few performance auditors have been detached from
the TEQIP activity. Formal intimation has been made.
New Mentors and Performance Auditors have been
identified
Institutions have been informed about the visit.

Template has been developed

Page65

ACTIONS

S.No.

19. IIMs and IITs to develop a

proposal to evaluate their

programs

20. Remove

COMPLIANCE
IIT Khargapur and IIT Bombay submitted the
proposals on evaluation.

IIMs have also developed a common methodology in

consultation with NPIU.
geographical Removed
of
TEQIP
to particular

allocation
institutions
IIMs and IITs
21. IITs and IIMs to offer their
programs to non-TEQIP
institutions (and charge an
appropriate fee), subject to
no TEQIP participant being
turned away
22. Equity
Action
Plan
guidelines to be revised by
NPIU with World Bank
guidance

The matter regarding offering programmes run by

IITs and IIMs to non-TEQIP institutions was put up
before NSC meeting on 28th May 2015. NSC has
stated that it will be reviewed separately by MHRD.
Revised guidelines were prepared in collaboration
with the World Bank. Further work on the proposed
changes is in progress. Some of the institution
examples on good practices have been sent to him by
NPIU. A visit to DTU, Delhi has also been
undertaken to discuss equity and project progress.

23. NPIU to develop guidelines Guidelines on Placement Rate have been developed

to calculate placement rates

and shared with the World Bank.

24. NPIU in collaboration with The guidelines on Placement Rates have been sent to

World Bank will organize a the Project institutions. After collecting data, the
workshop for institutions on Workshop on good practices in enhancing students
good practices in enhancing employability will be planned.
students employability that
would inform institutional
Action Plans on Improving
Students
Employability
both for UG and in
particular for PG where
placement rates are in
general much lower.
25. NPIU in collaboration with

the World Bank will carry

out a tracer study for TEQIP
II

Draft ToRs on Tracer Studies have been prepared and

WB comments have been received. After discussion
on 13th July 2015, further work will be undertaken.

Discuss ToRs

Page66

S.No.
26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.
32.

33.

Advertise
ACTIONS

COMPLIANCE

Report card for each

institution that presents
some of the main messages
to the institution in a
graphically attractive and
useful manner
Next full round of Survey

Report card for each institution is under revision by

the Infova Consultancy Services Ltd.

Include
an
additional
question
on
overall
satisfaction in each survey
Use data audit report
received to verify the data in
the MIS
Freeze the data for 2010-11
and 2011-12 for the
remaining 34 institutions
Freeze the data for 2012-13

Overall satisfaction has been included in the

questionnaire.

Provide hands-on-support
and training to institutes on
MIS
(especially
in
institutions with high turnover in staff designated for
data-entry)
Complete recruitment for
the
vacant
positions,
including the two positions
that need to be advertised

2nd round of Survey is planned in the month of

September 2015

On-going
The data for all institutions for three years i.e 201011, 2011-12 and 2012-13 is locked.

MIS Hands on Training was conducted for

34institutions (where data was inadequate) on 2627thMarch, 2015 at Mumbai.
This has resulted in increasing the adequacy of MIS
data from 156 to 172 institutions as on date.
Consultant (Admn)- filled
Sr Consultant (Academic)- filled
Consultant (Fin)- filled
Assoc Consultant (Fin)- filled
Store Asst. (Fin)- filled
Sr Consultant
M&E) selected candidate has refused to join and
an approval for waiting candidate is under process
with MHRD

S.No.

ACTIONS

COMPLIANCE

34.

Empower
BoG
of
institutions that have met all
the required performance
benchmarks
to
make
effective choices about the

For 64 Institutions meeting all the 12 PAIs, approval

has been accorded by MHRD for empowering BoG of
the respective institutions to approve the international
travel and institutions have been informed

Page67

use of project funds on accordingly.

international travel

35.

Budget and Flow of Funds:

36.

a) The latest position has been sent to The World

a) States which have
Bank on 26th June, 2015
not released funds
for more than 50
days to release the
same immediately
b) It is being shared every month
and status to be
shared with the Bank c) FM Indicators for 31st March 2015 have been sent
b) NPIU to share
to The World Bank on 5th June, 2015
monthly summary of
status of flow of
funds by
MHRD/states with
the Bank
c) FM Indicators
Summary for
states/CFIs to be
shared, including
information on low
of funds
Statutory Audit

a) Submit NPIUs PFS

b) Submit consolidated
audit report for FY
2013-14 to the Bank
37. Monitoring by NPIU
a) Share status of
appointment of
Internal Auditor for
SPFUs/ CFIs for FY
2014-15
b) Share draft format
for quarterly
reporting by SPFUs/
CFIs to NPIU
c) Share draft audit
observation
compliance
mechanism to be
followed in future.
ACTIONS
S.No.

a) Submitted to the World Bank

b) The Consolidated Audit Report for the F.Y. 201314 have been submitted to the World Bank on
28th Jan. 2015
a) Latest status of appointment of Internal Auditor
have been submitted on 5th June, 2015
b) Submitted on 5th June, 2015
Issues are being addressed to the States for
compliance.

COMPLIANCE

Page68

38.

FM Staffing:
Vacancy of NPIU FM
consultant to be filled

Vacancies already filled

Submitted on 20th April, 2015

Share Vacancy status at

SPFUs/ CFIs
39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

Review and plan the

procurement
for
the
remaining funds available
(apprx.Rs. 105 cr.)

Indicative procurement allocation of all 187 project

institution comes out to be Rs. 948 Cr (approx..) &
against this, the actual procurement planning carried
out by the institutions upto 30th June, 15 is Rs. 923 cr.
(approx.)
Institutes to plan 20% Other provisions have been made to address this
additional procurement to issue.
address
materialization
factor
Review
all
ongoing Review carried out.
contracts and extensions
processed accordingly
PPR report to be shared PPR forwarded to all concerned institutions for
with institutions
obtaining their necessary comments on observed
points. The response received from the most of the
institutions had already been submitted to World
Bank for their kind perusal.
Submit the details of The matter discussed with the WB procurement
procurement complaints if specialist & mechanism for the same is being worked
any with actions taken on it out.
to Bank for review and its
closer
Guidelines to be issued to Letters sent to all institutions.
all institutions on the
observations of the PPR.

Page69

Annex 6: New Actions from 5th JRM

S.no
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.

10.
11.

12.

13.

14.

Action

By Whom

Release funds to institutions which have met 8

or 9 of the indicators determined in the 4th
JRM. The indicator related to NBA
accreditation should have been met.
Release the next rounds of funds to institutes
only once they have met all the indicators
determined in the 5th JRM.
ToRs for study to evaluate the governance
initiatives undertaken under TEQIP II to
inform which governance initiatives should be
continued as well as new ones to be developed
going forward.
Action plan for each institution that has not
obtained academic autonomy from UGC.
BoGs complete their Governance Guidelines
Document
Series of training workshops for BoG
members to be organized

MHRD/NPIU

ToRs for a comprehensive assessment of the

functioning of the affiliation system
Assessment of the functioning of the affiliation
system
Report describing lessons learned and good
practices in the affiliation system and in the
process for obtaining autonomy by ACs to be
prepared
Explore means for integration of ATUs in the
TEQIP project
Incentivise reform of the affiliation system,
including a feasibility analysis and related
stimulus aimed at merging small colleges and
creating college cluster universities
Activities to foster effective exchange of
information and sharing of experiences among
ATUs
(a) Draft of short anonymous surveys of no
more than 10 questions each for (i)
participating institutions and (ii) mentors and
performance auditors, in order to obtain their
general feedback about the usefulness and
areas for future improvement of the
mentorship and performance auditing
components of the project.
(b) Implementation of survey

World Bank

(c) Analysis of results

Developing more systematic, frequent and
effective communication system between
mentors and institutions
Mandatory standardized training for all

To be Completed
by
August 31, 2015

MHRD/NPIU

November 30,
2015

World Bank

December 2015

NPIU and SPFUs

September 30,
2015
December2015

NPIU and SPFUs

NPIU

NPIU and World Bank

As and when
requested by
SPFUs
Immediate

NPIU and SPFUs

December 30,
2015
June 2016

NPIU

Immediate

State Governments

Immediate

NPIU

Immediate

NPIU and World Bank

August 2015

NPIU
NPIU and World Bank
NPIU

September 1-30,
2015
October 31, 2015
Immediate

NPIU

September 30,
Page70

15.
16.

17.
18.
19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.

25.

26.

27.
28.
29.

30.

31.

32.

33.
34.

mentors
Hosting of periodic workshops with mentors
and performance auditors
Template to share with mentors about
institutional good practices on the different
components of the project
Develop an effective quality assurance system
for Performance Audit reports.
ToRs to review the effectiveness of the current
Performance-Auditing function
ToRs and initiation of an evaluation of the
activities undertaken by the IIMs and by the
IITs, taking into account the proposals from
the IIMs and IITs for how to do this
Action plan with the IITs and IIMs to ensure
that the targets for IIT and IIM training will be
reached by October 2016
Data collection formats/survey instruments
used to collect feedback by QEEE
Discuss plan for incorporating faculty
development program into QEEE program
Meeting of students who participated in the
MITACS program
Allow BoGs to give approval for international
travel of faculty in TEQIP Institutions that
have met all performance benchmarks
Faculty and management trainings to be
organized with detailed information available
on NPIU websites with links to course
offerings
Desk review of good practices of the CoEs and
issues that represent challenges for the CoEs to
meet their targets.
All required resources to be deposited in the
four funds and report this through the MIS
Consultation with SPFUs for sorting out
clarifications in guidelines wherever required
Issue guidelines (as per PIP requirement) to
colleges on usage of four funds and decisionmaking process regarding usage
Decision on whether to prioritize accreditation
of UG programmes and communicate the same
to the NBA.
Follow up with institutes that have not
submitted their self assessment forms and ask
them to expedite the process.
Seek clarification from UGC on
renewal/cancellation of autonomous status for
previously autonomous institutes in Karnataka,
whose autonomous status needs to be
renewed/cancelled.
Learn from good practices regarding faculty
transfer policies from Tamil Nadu
Freeze the data for 2013-14

NPIU

2015
Every few months

NPIU

September 1, 2015

NPIU/MHRD

November 1, 2015

World Bank

Immediate

MHRD/NPIU

December 1, 2015

MHRD/NPIU

Immediate

MHRD/NPIU

September 15,
2015
December 31,
2015
November 1, 2015

MHRD/NPIU
NPIU
MHRD

Ongoing and to be
continued

NPIU

Ongoing

NPIU

December 1, 2015

NPIU and SPFUs

October 31, 2015

NPIU and SPFUs

October 31, 2015

NPIU and SPFUs

November 30,
2015

MHRD, NPIU and the

World Bank

September 30,
2015

NPIU and SPFUs

Immediate

MHRD/NPIU

Immediate

SPFUs

Immediate

NPIU

November 15,
Page71

35.
36.

37.

38.

39.
40.

41.

42.
43.

44.

45.

NPIU

2015
October 31, 2015

NPIU

ToRs by August
2015
Data collection by
December 1, 2015

NPIU

December 1, 2015

NPIU and World Bank

November 15,
2015

NPIU

November 1, 2105

NPIU

Immediate

NPIU

Immediate

NPIU

September 15,
2015
At the earliest
possible

One-day orientation session on good

NPIU/World Bank
governance for BoG Chairs and College
Principals
Hold BoG meetings in July, with one agenda Colleges with BOGs
item to schedule BoG meetings for the
remaining of the academic year

Continious

Government of
Rajasthan
Colleges/RTU

At the earliest
possible
Immediate

NPIU

Immediate

NPIU/MHRD

Immediate

NPIU

Immediate

50.

Constitution of BOGs of remaining

government colleges in Rajasthan
Colleges to apply to RTU to support their
request for autonomy and decision by RTU to
be given within 3 months
Follow up with NBA to review status of
pending applications and expedition of same
Set up of date by which all procurement to be
completed and inform SPFUs and colleges
Training on Procurement and Financing
Management to be organized
Filling the post of Central Project Advisors

MHRD

51.

Filling vacancies in NPIU

MHRD

52.

Follow-up with UGC on relaxation of age

MHRD/NPIU

As soon as
possible
As soon as
possible
September 15,

46.

47.
48.
49.

Sustainability plan for the MIS should be

developed
Finalize ToRs for tracer study based on
discussions held during the JRM. The survey
should be designed, administered and the data
collection for the 2013-14 batch as well as
2014-15 batch should be completed by
December 2015.
Pilot in few states/ institutes setting up formal
audit observation compliance mechanism like
Audit Committee at SPFUs.
Plan for the PMSS to be amended so that the
e-FMR can be generated automatically (rather
than institutions having to enter the
information separately into the e-FMR).
Relevant arrangement designed for monitoring
the utilization of interest received on funds.
Notify institutions that procurement activities
for goods and works should be completed
(i.e., final payments made) by 31st December
2015. For those well-performing institutions,
this deadline should be set at 6 months from
the release of additional funds.
Clarification to institutions which do not
spend their whole allocation; should the limit
on funds to be spent on procurement apply to
the original allocation or only the amount of
funds actually spent?
Linking the PMSS to the FMR

Page72

53.
54.
55.

56.
57.

criteria for autonomy for TEQIP institutes in

low-income and special category states
Finalize data availability status with Infova
Training sessions for BoG members
Decision on international travel decisionmaking authority for the duration of the
project
Low-income and special category state
strategy
Colleges to collect and report placement data
as per the NPIU guidelines

2015
MHRD
NPIU
MHRD/NPIU

November 1, 2015
December 1, 2015
As soon as
possible

MHRD/NPIU/World
Bank
Colleges

November 15,
2015
Immediate

Page73