MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION)

BACKGROUND NOTE

FOR THE MEETING OF

STATE SECRETARIES OF HIGHER /TECHNICAL EDUCATION

ON TWELFTH FIVE YEAR PLAN

Date: 22nd July, 2013 Time: 10.30AM to 5.30PM

Venue : Planning Commission Conference Hall (Room No. 122)

Yojana Bhavan, New Delhi

Meeting of State Secretaries of Higher / Technical Education on Twelfth Five Year Plan 

& Review of Annual Plan 2013‐14 

Jointly organized by Planning Commission and Department of Higher Education, MHRD Conference Hall (Room No. 122), Yojana Bhawan, New Delhi 22nd  July 2013 

Time  Session 

Monday, 22nd  July 2013 

10:30 – 11:00  Opening Remarks  Member, HRD Secretary, Planning Commission Secretary, Higher Education 

11:00 – 13:00  State Higher Education in the Twelfth Plan  Presentation: (1) Holistic and Strategic Approach in the 12th Plan by              Adviser, Higher Education; (2) State Perspective / Strategic Plans by JS Higher Education; (3) State wise disaggregated targets by VC (NEUPA)    

                        Discussions  

13:00 – 14:00  Lunch Break 

14:00 – 17:00   Review of Annual Plan 2013‐14  Issues about Ongoing Central Sector / Centrally Sponsored Schemes 

(A) Consolidation of new institutions set up during XI Plan [AS(T) and JS(CU&L)] 

(B) Skill Building [JS(CU&L) and JS(TEL)] (C) Issues relating to Quality, including Accreditation, NMEICT, Research & 

Innovation [AS(T), JS(TEL) & JS(HE)] (D) Issues relating to Equity [JS(ME) & EA} (E) Database of Higher Education [DDG} 

 Chair: Secretary, Higher Education Remarks: Chairman, UGC, Chairman, AICTE and concerned officers of Ministry 

 Feedback and Remarks by State Secretaries 

17:00 – 17:30  Wrap‐up & Concluding Remarks Member (HRD) /  Secretary, Higher Education 

  

 Schedule 

I.

Appro

quantum

(access, 

the  stat

achieved

process 

The  Sta

resource

process 

non‐neg

to  beco

institutio

by state

the sche

them  fo

fulfilling

achievem

achievem

the inte

RashStrat

oach RUSA will fu

m of funds fo

equity and e

tes  and  inst

d. The  State

of planning 

te  Higher  E

es to the inst

In  order  to

have to be m

gotiable prer

me  eligible 

onal governa

es, filling facu

eme an initia

or  complying

g  the prereq

ments viz‐a‐v

ments again

nded outcom

State 

htriya Utegic P

und the insti

or the states 

excellence). 

itutions  on 

e Higher Edu

and evaluat

ducation  Co

titutions. 

  realize  the

made by the

requisites, i.e

for  funding

ance reform

ulty position

al, preparato

g with  the  a

uisite a‐prio

viz the targe

st the target

mes. 

Higher Edu

Plan

RUS

Futu

 UchchaPlannin

tutions unde

and institut

The State Hi

the  basis  o

ucation Coun

tion, in addit

ouncils  will  b

e  intended  o

 states. Som

e., commitm

g  under  RUS

s, creation o

ns (or a com

ory amount c

a‐priori  requ

ori  commitm

ets. Future fu

ts. The emp

States and 

States cr

cation Coun

ns evaluated

SA funds allo

ure grants d

atar Shng for S

er a few key

ion will be th

igher Educat

f  these  nor

ncil  (discusse

tion to other

be  the  key 

outcomes,  c

me of these co

ments made b

SA.  These  pr

of State High

mitment to 

can also be p

uirements.  O

ents,  the  sta

unds flows w

hasis would 

RUSA: App

institutions

reate and su

ncil enters iAutho

d on the bas

ocated und

ependent u

hiksha AStates 

y component

he norms tha

tion Plans wi

ms  as well 

ed  in  follow

r monitoring

institution  a

certain  prior

onditions wi

by the states

rerequisites 

er Education

do so within

provided to t

Once  eligible

ates will  rec

would be dete

be not only

proach 

s meet prere

ubmit State

nto a agreeority

sis of norms

er specific c

upon previo

 Abhiya 

ts. The yards

at will reflect

ll capture th

as  the  targe

ing  sections

g and capacit

at  the  state

r  commitme

ll be in the n

s as well as i

include  aca

n Councils, fu

n a fixed tim

the state gov

e  for  fundin

ceive  funds o

ermined bas

y on physical

equisites

 Plans

ement with 

s and criteri

component

us utilisatio

an  

stick for dec

t the key res

he current po

ets  that  nee

) will undert

ty building fu

e  level  to  ch

ents  towards

nature of a‐p

nstitutions, 

ademic,  sect

unding comm

me frame) et

vernment to

ng  under  RU

on  the basis

sed on outco

l output, but

RUSA Missi

ia

ts

on 

iding the 

sult areas 

osition of 

ed  to  be 

take  this 

unctions. 

hannelize 

s  reform 

priori and 

for them 

toral  and 

mitments 

tc. Under 

o prepare 

USA  after 

s of  their 

omes and 

t also on 

 

ion 

Prerequisites   A cornerstone of RUSA will be the stipulation of a set of prerequisite, certain commitments 

that must  be made  by  the  state  government  as  well  as  institutions  in  order  to  be  eligible  for 

receiving  grants  under  RUSA.  This  is  an  essential  element  of  strategic  central  funding.  These 

conditions are  in  the nature of categorical policy  imperatives which would ensure  that  the higher 

education in the country is guided on desirable paths by all states. 

 

The  prerequisites  are  at  two  levels,  commitment  given  by  states  to  center  and  the 

commitment given by  institutions to the states. Unless these commitments are fulfilled, the states 

and institutions will not be able to avail of grants under RUSA. The states are expected to fulfill the a‐

priori requirements and also honour the commitments made towards certain conditions which must 

be fulfilled during the course of RUSA implementation. 

Planning Under RUSA, a perspective plan  (State Higher Education Plan)  for higher education  in  the 

state  is to be drawn up for a spread over a period of ten years which would be reviewed after five 

years. The perspective plan is required to be broken down into annual plans with detailed planning 

and  budgeting  exercise  to  fix  the  annual  targets  for  program  implementation  and  the  required 

budget  for  them.  To  effectively  implement  and  monitor  the  activities  during  the  year,  each 

implementing agency  in  the State  is  required  to prepare a plan of action. This should  indicate  the 

physical  targets  and  budgetary  estimates  in  accordance with  the  approved  pattern  of  assistance 

Prerequisites

For the States 

State Higher Education Council

State perspective Plan

State contribution to higher education in terms of GSDP 

State funding commitment – share and timeliness 

Agreement to create separate fund for RUSA 

Filling faculty positions

Affiliation and examination reforms

Governance/administrative reforms

Institutional governance (administrative) reforms 

For the Institutions 

Academic reforms and inter and cross disciplinarily 

Examination reforms

Affiliation reforms 

Separate project management teams

Perspective planning

Equity commitments (esp aided sector)

Commitments on research and innovation efforts 

Mandatory faculty recruitment and improvement 

Establishment of Management Information System  

Regulatory compliance 

under the RUSA. These should cover all aspects of the program activities for the period from April to 

March each year, and are sent by each State/ UT to the Ministry of Human Resources Development, 

GoI  for approval well before  the  start of  the year.  It  is  important  that  the action plan  is  realistic, 

practically implementable and correlates the physical outputs with the cost estimates. 

Bottom up Approach   RUSA follows a ‘bottom up’ approach for planning and budgeting. The process begins at the 

institutional  level, which prepares the “Institutional Action Plan” based on  inputs/ discussions with 

the multiple – stakeholders within its jurisdiction and sends to the State Higher Educational Council 

(SHEC).  In addition, the SHEC should also engage  in consultation with multiple stakeholders across 

the State taking into account regional requirements as also requirements in keeping with equity and 

access  concerns  (especially  underserved  and  backward  districts).  These  Action  Plans  are  then 

aggregated to form a State Higher Educational Plan (SHEP). All SHEPs are reviewed and compiled to 

estimate the next year's fund requirements for program implementation activities under RUSA. 

  This  requires  setting  up  of  planning  teams  and  committees  at  various  levels  i.e.  at 

Underserved  and backward districts,  regional  zones, educational  institutional  level  through  active 

participation  of  multiple  stakeholders  which  will  help  perform  both  planning  and  on‐going 

monitoring  functions.  The  process  of  giving  inputs  and  consolidation  of  plans will  be  through  a 

bottom up approach. 

  The States and SHECs should function not merely as agencies to aggregate the  institutional 

plans at state level. They are required to consider the entire state as a single unit of planning. Their 

role  is more towards ensuring a balanced development of higher education  in the entire state. The 

state plan must  include  strategies  to address  spatial and geographical gaps, perspective discipline 

planning etc. The state has to identify un‐served/under‐served areas and make special provisions for 

the  new  institutions  to  come  up  in  those  areas.  The  plans  must  also  address  the  problem  of 

institutional congestion and have a strategy to deal with the same. Similarly, state must also look at 

the state as a single entity to plan for affiliation reforms and creation of new universities etc. 

Process of Preparation of Plans   The Ministry of Human Resource Development  is the nodal agency administering the RUSA 

program. It receives the budget targets of participating states, reviews/ analyzes them & then gives 

approvals & makes disbursements, and so the entire process runs through a two‐way mechanism: 

“Budgetary Demands” emanating from Institutions to the MHRD, GoI by the state 

“Budgetary Approvals/ Allocations” conveyed from MHRD, GoI to the State Treasury, which 

in turn will allot it to the SHECs along with its matching share and in turn to the institutions. 

 

 

 

 

Resou 

States. T

addition

states w

basis of 

will be  t

more re

Categor

Special CategorStates 

Other and UTs 

 

and  vul

inaccess

districts

urce AlloThe MHRD 

The overall a

nal weightag

with weak so

norms and 

the  scheme 

sources to th

ry  S

ry ANS

States s 

 

Under RUSA

nerable  gro

sible areas,  l

. 

cation follows  nor

allocation  is 

e has been a

ocio‐econom

further  ince

for  resourc

he States wh

States 

Assam, ManNagaland, MSikkim, Him

A socio‐demo

oups;  district

eft wing aff

Prepar

rm  and  perf

made on  th

assigned to t

ic and healt

entives will b

e  allocation 

hich are critic

nipur, MegMizoram,  Tachal Prade

ographic var

ts  with  adv

ected distric

 

ation of Stat

formance‐ba

he basis of s

the States to

h  indicators

be provided 

to different

cal for achiev

halaya, AruTripura,  Jamesh and Utt

riables  like r

erse  educat

cts etc. are c

te Plans 

ased  approa

student popu

o ensure enh

. Further, re

on  the basi

t  category o

ving the obje

unachal Prammu  &  Kasarakhand 

ural/urban d

tion  indicato

considered w

ch  to  alloca

ulation  (18‐2

hanced alloca

esources will

s of perform

of  States. Th

ectives of RU

CenCon

adesh, shmir, 

90:

65:

distribution; 

ors;  difficult

while allocat

ate  funds  to

23) of  the st

ation of reso

 be allocate

mance. The  f

his  approach

USA. 

nter:  Sntribution 

10 

35 

proportion 

,  most  diffi

ting resource

 

o  various 

tates. An 

ources to 

d on the 

following 

 ensures 

tate 

of SC/ST 

cult  and 

es  to  the 

Resource Envelop The Resources allocated to a particular state for any given financial year is termed as the “Resource 

Envelope”. The resource envelope for a Financial Year consists of: 

Uncommitted Unspent Balance.  

GoI Allocation (BE) proposed for the year.  

State Share Contribution due for the year.  

Institutional Higher Educational Plan    The  Institutional  Higher  Educational  Action  Plan  depicts  the  resource  requirements  at 

institutional  level as well as at  its sub units for program  implementation  in terms of  infrastructure, 

HR, procurement, schemes execution etc. and provides an overall budget required for the Institution 

to execute those activities. The  Institutional Governing Structure  is responsible for the preparation 

of  IHEAP  that needs  to be done by constituting a Planning  team  responsible  for providing overall 

guidance and support to the planning process. 

State Higher Education Plan   After submitting the  Institution Plans to the SHEC, they are to be reviewed  in detail at the 

state level and finalized through extensive meetings/ discussions with the various stakeholders. The 

requirements for all the areas/institutions are clubbed with the State level budgetary requirements 

to  form  the  State Higher Education Plan. This  annual  SHEP will help  the  states  in  identifying  and 

quantifying  their  targets  required  for  program  implementation  for  the  proposed  year.  However 

while sanctioning the resources, MHRD would ensure that these plans are organically  linked to the 

overall  perspective  plans.  Therefore,  a  perspective  plans  in  the  required  template would  be  the 

guiding document to ensure that over all objectives of the state plans are not lost sight of. 

Key considerations while drafting SHEP   Some  of  the  key  aspects, which must  be  considered  for  preparation  of  SHEPs,  are  given 

below: 

Funds released under RUSA do not  lapse at  the close of  the Financial Year but are carried 

over  to  the  next  Financial  Year  in  the  form  of  committed  and  uncommitted  unspent 

balances.  

Clear  demarcation  of  Committed Unspent  and Uncommitted  unspent  balances  has  to  be 

made. The states need to show the quantum of usage of funds in the previous year and the 

quantum of unspent  funds  lying with  them. The previous year  funds  lying with  the  states 

need to be clearly demarcated and shown under the heads:  

Committed  Unspent  Funds:  These  funds  are  meant  for  those  activities  for  which 

implementation  have  already  started,  are  underway,  or  have  been  administratively 

approved  but  not  implemented  fully.  These  balances  need  to  be  indicated  by  the  state 

activity wise while proposing  the SHEP  for  the next Financial Year. The State/UT may also 

provide the estimated timelines for utilization of committed liability, preferably within next 

two quarters.  

Uncommitted  Unspent  Funds:  The  funds  lying  with  Institutions  which  could  not  be 

committed  for utilization during  the  year  should  also be worked out  and  incorporated  in 

State level unspent balances. 

Ceiling on Civil works: A portion of state funds is used on civil works. Ideally the proportion 

of civil works would not cross 60% of the total resource requirements. This can be relaxed in 

exceptional cases with the approval of the Mission Authority. Also, all the civil construction 

work should be taken up only after  including the manpower & equipment requirements so 

that a large portion of public funds is not blocked in unutilized buildings.  

Ceiling on Program Management Costs: A maximum of 4% of approved SHEP may be spent 

on program MMER  activities  (management, monitoring,  evaluation  and  research)  such  as 

hiring  of  consultants  coming  under  the  ambit  of  program management, monitoring  and 

evaluation, audit expenses, mobility support, office expenses, purchase of computers, office 

furniture & fixtures, fax machines etc.  

State's Share: The states participate with the centre in funding the RUSA program. States are 

required to contribute 10% to 35% of the total amount released. It should be ensured that 

all along the state expenditure on health increases in real terms and there is no substitution 

of the state expenditure by Central expenditure.  

Format of SHEP   Another  important aspect of the budget  is the format  in which  it  is presented. The format 

should be  crisp, well defined and easily decipherable at all  levels.  For  this, Ministry prepares  the 

framework and guidelines for preparation of SHEPs that will be circulated to the States and UTs each 

year for submission and approval of their Budget for the forthcoming year. These guidelines aim to 

reduce the size of the framework and demand of information from the states, so as to make SHEPs 

less bulky without compromising with the strategic inputs and other essential information. The new 

format of SHEP will be made available online on the Mission website. As per the format, following 

are the broad contents of the SHEP: 

Executive Summary  

Outcome analysis of last SHEP  

Policy and Strategic Reforms in Strategic Areas  

Conditionalities  

Scheme/ Program under RUSA  

Monitoring and Evaluation  

Financial Management  

State Resources and Other sources of funds  

Priority projects if other resources are available  

Approval Process   The Project Approval Board at GoI level undertakes detailed review of the SHEPs submitted 

by the states. It will also assess the performance of the State and look at the targets that have been 

set. The SHEP will then be approved by the PAB (in case any changes are made the states will make 

the changes and resubmit the same to PAB) and funds will be released to states accordingly. 

Timelines   The  Financial  Year beginning  from  1st of April  is  the  commencement date  of  the Annual 

Project  Implementation Plans. Hence,  the budget needs  to be approved and communicated at all 

levels before this date. This implies that it needs to be sent for approval and consented at all levels 

of authority before 1st April. The success of budgeting exercise is dependent on adherence to time 

schedules. Delays in submissions and approvals can delay the finalization of the SHEPs. Hence, RUSA 

will  specify  the  dates  by  which  submissions  and  approvals  need  to  be  carried  out.  The  tabular 

representation of the time schedule to be followed is given below: 

Detailed Timelines (to be intimated to States at the start of the project) 

Activity  Timeline 

Communication of Resource Envelop to Institutions by SHEC

Submission of Institutional Plans 

Receiving of SHEP in MHRD 

Pre‐appraisal meeting 

Discussion at National Steering Committee/PAB

Approved RoPs sent to the SHEC after the approval at GoI

Transfer of first installment of money to SHEC

Receipt of Expenditure Statement/MHRD review

Transfer of second installment 

 

Revision of Budget   After  the  finalization of  the SHEP,  the states can place an additional demand  for  funds  for 

any  specific  purpose  to  the  Ministry.  After  review  and  feedback  from  the  concerned  program 

divisions,  the  Ministry  may  approve  or  disapprove  the  request.  In  case  of  an  approval,  a 

letter/corrigendum shall be  issued to the state notifying the approved amount and the subsequent 

change in the RoP of the state.  

Draft State and Institutional Plan Templates  

Executive Summary 

A summary of the contents of the State Plan must be presented. The Executive summary can 

cover the part performance, vision, key initiatives, main challenges faced etc.  

Chapter 1: Introduction  

Mission  

A mission statement is fundamental to strategic planning. It is an assertion of an institution’s 

raison  d’être,  or  purpose,  and  should  clearly  define  its  ideals  as well  as  the  services  it  offers  to 

various stakeholders. It informs an institution’s financial planning, budgeting, staffing and academic 

programming. One aspect of a mission statement relates to students,  in terms of both  institutional 

commitments and expectations. 

The mission  statement  should  be  a  general  statement  of  values,  aims  and  goals  of  the 

institution.  An  effective  mission  statement  will  be  clear,  precise  and  transparent  about 

commitments,  long‐term goals and values.  It usually  includes a commitment to high standards and 

levels  of  performance,  discussion  of  the  context  of  the  institutional  environment,  recognition  of 

institutional  obligations  to  the  community,  the  nation  and  the  world,  and  commitment  to  its 

students. A mission statement ordinarily consists of two parts: 

a high‐level preamble that encapsulates the gist of the institutional mission; and 

a narrative portion  that  lists  the  particularities  and  elaborates on  the  implications of  the mission statement in practical terms. 

Vision 

 An  effective  vision  statement  is  vital  to  a  strategic  planning  process. A  vision  statement 

describes what an institution aspires to become in the future and the values it enshrines. It captures 

in detail what things could be like at the institution if it were functioning effectively and focuses on 

the contribution the institution will make to society. In the long run, a successful strategic plan must 

be premised on institutional values, such as: 

Academic freedom; 

Institutional autonomy; 

High quality; 

Equal access; and 

Non‐discrimination (by race, ethnic affiliation, religion and gender) Goals 

 Institutional  goals  help  translate  the  institutional  vision  and  mission  into  action.  Goals 

should state clearly the conditions for institutional effectiveness, and the norms and expectations of 

students and staff. They should present a broad statement of the aims of the institution. . The goals 

must consist of clear statements based on objective criteria and capture the main targets that the 

institution has set for itself.  

 

Chapter 2: Background 

Demographic Profile of the State 

Population 

Rural‐Urban spread 

Higher Education Profile 

GER across categories, across state 

Qualitative comparison between various areas of the State 

Private sector plan 

SWOT Analysis  

Key hurdles such as low access due to low income, large tribal population etc 

Key strengths such as existence of strong education hubs, industry clusters etc 

Academic Information 

Type  No of Universities 

Central University   

State University   

Private University   

Other degree awarding institution declared by University   

Deemed University   

Other   

Total   

 

Type  No of Colleges 

Government funded   

Government aided   

Private unaided   

Autonomous   

Other   

Total   

 

Type  No of Colleges 

Autonomous colleges   

Affiliated colleges   

Constituent colleges   

Other   

Total   

 

 

 

Accreditation of Universities 

Agency  Status  Score Range No of 

Institutions 

Not accredited  Not accredited  ‐   

NAAC  

Accredited and revalidated after 2007 

A   

B   

C   

D   

Accredited but not revalidated after 2007 

A   

B   

C   

D   

State Accreditation Authority  

Accredited  

A   

B   

C   

D   

 

Accreditation of Colleges 

Agency  Status  Score Range No of 

Institutions 

Not accredited  Not accredited  ‐   

NAAC  

Accredited and revalidated after 2007 

A   

B   

C   

D   

Accredited but not revalidated after 2007 

A   

B   

C   

D   

State Accreditation Authority  

Accredited  

A   

B   

C   

D   

 

Faculty Status (Regular/On-Contract Faculty as on March 31st, 20XX) 

 

Faculty Rank 

No. of Sanctioned Regular 

Present Status : Number in Position 

by Highest Qualification

   

Total Number of regular 

facultyinPosition

 

Total V

acancies 

 

Total Number of contract 

faculty in  Position 

Doctoral Degree  Masters Degree  Bachelor Degree 

 

Engineering 

 

Other 

 

Engineering 

 

Other 

 

Engineering 

 

Other 

R  C  R  C  R  C  R C R C R C

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

4 5

 

6

 

7

 

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15= 

(3+5+7+9+11+13)

16= 

(2-15)

17= 

(4+6+8+10Prof               Assistant  Prof               Associate  Prof               

             Total               

 

R=Regular, C=Contract 

Chapter 3: Analysis of past performance 

Summary 

Summary of the performance of the past year against the major targets set and the major reasons 

for non‐performance 

Detailed Analysis 

Performance against specific goals – details on a state wise basis 

Analysis of the expenditure made against the allocations, committed unspent and uncommitted unspent balances 

Any particular Universities that need to be mentioned for above or below average performance 

Reasons for non‐performance 

Affiliation reform progress with data on the number of affiliating universities and number of affiliated colleges for every university 

New strategies adopted for improving equity, access and excellence – any new and innovative practices adopted by the State 

 

Chapter 4: Preparation of the State Plan 

Methodology  

The steps used for development of the Plan 

Stakeholder Consultation 

Which were the stakeholders that were consulted for the process of developing the Plan and what 

were their major contributions 

Chapter 5: Five‐year Perspective Plan 

Provide the five‐year perspective plan. The five‐year plan must contain:  

Current scores on norms, scores set for the current year (in the five year plan) and the target scores for the end of five‐year plan 

Revisions in the targets that the SHEC deems necessary  

State’s assessment of its progress against the five‐year plan targets  

Course corrections and major strategies adopted to achieve the plan targets  

Chapter 6: Snapshot of the Annual Plan 

This section would provide the summary of the State Higher Education Plan; it would capture the 

main goals and the financial outlay.  

Priority Areas 

The State identifies 6‐7 priority areas that it needs to work on. These areas  as well as the 

justifications must be mentioned. 

Strategy 

The Strategy section must mention out the thrust areas of the coming year, highlight the key 

initiatives the States will undertake to tackle weak areas in the State and what the State hopes to 

achieve from these initiatives.  

Sources of funds 

Source  Funds expected 

1. Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan   

2. Grants from State Higher Education Department   

3. Grants from other State departments   

4. Grants from Central Departments    

5. Raised  from  private  sector,  institutions,  foundations  and organizations  

 

6. Resources  raised  by  higher  education  institutions  from internal sources like student fees, examination fees etc 

 

Total    

 

Major targets and financial outlays  

Component Number/target Financial Outlay

New Universities

Up gradation of existing autonomous colleges to 

Conversion of colleges to Cluster Universities

Infrastructure grants to Universities

New Model Colleges (General)

Upgradation of existing degree colleges to model colleges

New Colleges (Professional)

Infrastructure grants to colleges

Research, innovation and quality improvement

Equity initiatives

Faculty recruitment support 

Faculty improvements

Research Universities

Vocationalisation of Higher Education

Leadership Development of Educational Administrators

Institutional restructuring & reforms 

Capacity building & preparation, Data collection & planning 

MIS 

Polytechnic Colleges 

 

Prerequisites: Essential commitments from the State 

S. No.  Item  State’s Commitment 

(Yes/No) 

1.   Does the State agree to: 

Set specific targets and policy goals for higher education and agree 

about size and shape. 

 

2.   Share  the project cost of  the Government  funded and aided 

institutions with MHRD  in the applicable ratio (10:90, 35:65)  

 

3.   Scale up to and maintain prescribed levels of funding to higher 

education as a % of State Gross Domestic Product 

 

4.   Create the State Higher Education Council according to the 

suggestion made under RUSA 

 

5.   Establish “State Project Directorate” (SPD) located in State 

Directorate of Higher Education / the department responsible for 

Higher Education with adequate staff and maintain the staffing with 

stability? 

 

6.   Fill up vacant faculty positions   

7.   Implement all the affiliation reforms mentioned under RUSA   

8.   Implement all the sectoral governance reforms mentioned under 

RUSA 

 

9.   Create and submit the State Higher Education Plan according to 

prescribed guidelines 

 

10.   Implement the Project according to the Project Implementation Plan  

11.   Ensure implementation of both academic and non‐academic 

reforms by all institutions 

 

12.   Discontinue funding to any state beyond the second year of the 

Project, if the state fails neglects project Implementation 

 

13.   Comply with the Disclosure Management Framework   

 

Current level and targets for the next year 

S No.  Indicator           

1. Governance Index ‐ 17%           

1.1 % of Universities with more than 

100 affiliated colleges     

 

 

 

1.2 % of autonomous of colleges out 

of total colleges covered under 

RUSA     

 

 

 

1.3 Ratio of teaching to non‐teaching 

staff in State Higher Education     

 

 

 

1.4 Delay in exam conduction and 

declaration of results (in %)     

 

 

 

1.5 % of institutions with a functional 

website     

 

 

 

2.   Access Index ‐ 21.5           

2.1 GER of the State           

2.2 Rural Institutional density of the 

State     

 

 

 

2.3 Urban Institutional density of the 

State     

 

 

 

2.4 Median capacity intake of 

Universities     

 

 

 

2.5 Median capacity intake of 

Colleges     

 

 

 

2.6 % of students in private 

universities or colleges as a % of 

students in state/central 

institutions     

 

 

 

2.7 Scholarships provided by state as 

a % of total expenditure on 

Higher education     

 

 

 

3.   Equity Index ‐ 22.5%           

3.1 SC GER           

3.2 ST GER           

3.3 GER for Females           

3.4% of districts below GER National 

         

average 

3.5 % of students from rural 

backgrounds (define rural) in the 

higher education system     

 

 

 

3.6 % of institutions "differently‐

abled friendly"     

 

 

 

3.7 Existence of Equal Opportunities 

Commission     

 

 

 

4.   Quality Index ‐ 25%           

4.1 Student teacher ratio across the 

State     

 

 

 

4.2 % of institutions accredited by 

NAAC/State Accreditation 

Authority     

 

 

 

4.3 Average rating of Universities           

4.4 Average rating of Colleges           

4.5 % of active teachers that are non‐

permanent     

 

 

 

4.6 Per institution foreign 

collaboration     

 

 

 

4.7 Capacity at PG level as a % of 

undergraduate capacity     

 

 

 

5.   Research and Innovation index ‐ 

14%     

 

 

 

5.1 Capacity at doctoral level as % of 

undergraduate capacity     

 

 

 

5.2 Average number of publications 

by State Universities     

 

 

 

5.3 Citation Impact           

5.4 Median patents granted for State 

universities     

 

 

 

  Total Score           

 

Chapter 7: Detailed Plan 

Based on SWOT analysis provide the “strategic plan” developed for the State Plan and how the key 

activities proposed in the State Plan are linked with the results of SWOT Analysis. The Plan must 

cover the strategies that the State has for improvement in  

Overview of the major initiatives  

This section must address how the State plans to improve access, equity and excellence in the 

coming year. Whether there are any thrust areas geographically etc.  

Governance 

Access  

Equity   

Quality  

Research    

Private sector participation 

Plan for including the private sector in planned higher education expansion and raising resources 

from the private sector 

Detailed component‐wise allocations 

 

Component  Year 1

Target 

Year 2

Target 

Year 3 

Target 

 Year 4 

Target 

Year 5

Target 

New Universities     

Up gradation of existing autonomous colleges to 

Universities 

   

Conversion of colleges to Cluster Universities    

Infrastructure grants to Universities     

New Model Colleges (General)     

Upgradation of existing degree colleges to model colleges    

New Colleges (Professional)     

Infrastructure grants to colleges     

Research, innovation and quality improvement    

Equity initiatives     

Faculty recruitment support     

Faculty improvements     

Research Universities     

Vocationalisation of Higher Education     

Leadership Development of Educational Administrators    

Institutional restructuring & reforms     

Capacity building & preparation, Data collection & 

planning  

   

MIS     

Polytechnic Colleges           

 

Chapter 8: University‐wise plans and financial impact  

Outlays for all universities and colleges 

University wise break up 

Name of University   Planned Outlay  Current Score  Target Score 

University 1        

University 2        

University 3        

University 4        

 

College wise break up  

Name of College   Planned Outlay  Current Score  Target Score 

College 1        

College 2        

College 3        

College 4        

 

Detailed Allocations for Universities  

University 1  

1. 1 Short note on the performance over the last year against norms (not exceeding 200 words) 

1.2 Short note on the strategy for the coming year (not exceeding 200 words) 

1.3 Major Norms – Current and target for coming year 

Norm  Current   Target 

Governance Quality Index      

Academic Excellence Index      

Equity Initiative Index      

Research and Innovation Index     

Student Facilities Index     

Infrastructure and others Index      

1.4 Components‐wise outlay 

Component   Target 

Expansion of Institution    

Research and innovation focus    

Infrastructural upgradation of existing institutions    

Establishing Management Information System   

Faculty support – recruitment and capacity building    

Administrative reforms   

Academic reforms   

Affiliation reforms   

 

State Baseline  

Head and Nodal Officer 

Name  Phone  Mobile number  Fax number  Email address 

State (Full time appointee) 

         

 

State Baselines 

S.No

Parameters

1 Enrollment and GER of the State

a Male Female Total

b Male SC Female SC Total SC

c Male ST/DT&ONT Female ST/DT&ONT Total ST/DT&ONT

d Male OBC Female OBC Total OBC

e Male (General) Female (General) Total (General)

f Male (Urban) Female (Urban) Total (Urban)

g Male (Rural) Female (Rural) Total (Rural)

2 Degrees Awarded

Awarded in 2012 Number that originally enrolled in first year of the program

Ratio of degree awarded to enrolled

3 year Undergraduate degrees

Auto-calculate

4 year Undergraduate degrees

Auto-calculate

5 year integrated Masters Auto-calculate

2 year masters Auto-calculate

3 Total number of PhD degrees

Enrolled annually (i.) Awarded annually (ii.)

Total

4 Number of research publications in Indian refereed journals in the year 20XX-1X

5 Number of research publications in International refereed journals in the year 20XX-1X

6 Number of patents obtained in the year 20XX-1X

7 Number of sponsored research projects completed in the year 20XX-1X

8 IRG from students' fee and other charges in the year 20XX-1X (Rs. In lakh)

9 IRG from externally funded R&D projects, consultancies in the year 20XX-1X (Rs. in lakh)

10 Total IRG in the year 20XX-1X (Rs. in lakhs)

11 Total Number of autonomous colleges in the State in year 20XX-IX

12 Total nos. colleges granted autonomy in year 20XX-IX

Total nos. of autonomy withdrawn in year 20XX-IX

13 Total nos. colleges created in year 20XX-IX Total nos. of colleges closed down in year 20XX-IX

14 Institutional Density (per 1000 sq. km)

Institutions (Urban) Institutions (Rural) Institutions (Total)

15 New Institutions created (Urban)

New Institutions created New Institutions created (Total)

(Rural)

16 Total financial contribution of private sector in Higher Education as a % of total higher education expenditure

17 Expenditure detail

State Expenditure on higher education as a % of GSDP

Expenditure on research, development and related activities as % of Total Higher Education Expenditure

Expenditure on capital creation as % of Total Higher Education Expenditure

Expenditure on salary of teaching staff as % of Total Higher Education Expenditure

Expenditure on salary of non-teaching staff as % of Total Higher Education Expenditure

 

*** 

   

II. CONSOLIDATION OF NEW INSTITUTIONS   

 

1. Issue  pending  with  the  State  Governments  w.r.t  new  National  Institutes  of 

Technology (NITs) 

 

NIT/ Delhi‐  The  land earmarked  at Bankholi Village  (Narela)  for permanent 

campus of the Institute is yet to be transferred by the State Govt. Of Delhi.  

NIT/Goa‐  the  land  earmarked  at  Cuncolim  for  permanent  campus  of  the 

Institute is yet ot be transferred by the State Govt. Of Goa.  

NIT/Sikkim – The Land earmarked at Khamdong for the permanent campus of 

the Institute is yet to be transferred by the State Govt. of Sikkim.  

NIT/ Uttarakhand – State Govt’s nominees  from State Govt. of Uttarakhand 

are  still  awaited  for  the  constitution  of  Board  of Governors  (BOG)  of NIT‐ 

Uttarakhand.  

NIT/Mizoram  –  Part  land  measuring  84  acres  at  lengpui  is  yet  to  be 

transferred by the State Govt. of Mizoram.  

2. Issue  pending  with  the  State  Governments  w.r.t  old    National  Institutes  of 

Technology (NITs) 

NIT /Kerala‐ Nomination of two State Government’s nominees on the Board 

of  Governors  of  NIT‐  Calicut  (Kerala)  from  amongst  persons,  who,  in  the 

opinion of that Government, are technologist or industrialists of repute. 

NIT/  Haryana  ‐  Nomination  of  two  State  Government’s  nominees  on  the 

Board  of Governors  of NIT‐  Kurukshetra  (Haryana)  from  amongst  persons, 

who    in the opinon of that Government, are technologist or  industrialists of 

repute.  

NIT/Maharashtra‐  One State government nominee is awaited  on the Board 

of Governors of VNIT‐ Nagpur (Maharashtra).  

NIT/Bihar‐  One  State  Government  nominee  is  awaited  on  the  Board  o 

Gvoernors of NIT‐ Patna (Bihar). 

NIT/Assam‐ Nomination of  two State Government’s nominees on  the Board 

of  Governors  of  NIT‐Silchar  (Assam)  from  amongst  persons,  who  in  the 

opinion of that Government , are technologist or industrialists of repute.  

NIT/Jammu & Kashmir‐ Additional  land measuring 64 acres at Zainkot  is yet 

to be transferred by State Government of Jammu and Kashmir in the name of 

NIT‐ Sirnagar (J&K).   

3.  There  is  a  time  lag  for  release  of  funds  under  TEQIP‐II    from  the  State  to  the Institutions  as follows :  

Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Karnataka, Punjab & Rajasthan : 8 – 12 Months 

 

Andhra  Pradesh,  Bihar,  Himachal  Pradesh,  Kerala,  Madhya  Pradesh  & 

Uttarakhand : 6‐8 months. 

Jharkhand,  Maharashtra,  UT‐Chandigarh,  UT‐Puducherry,  Uttar  Pradesh  & West Bengal : 3‐5 months.  

State‐wise details on annexe‐I 

4.  NBA would like to suggest the following to the State Governments for successful implementation of mandatory accreditation:‐ 

    State  Governments  may  work  with  affiliating  universities  to  make  the appropriate legislation for making the following mandatory:‐ 

i) Linkage of affiliation, by the State Governments, with the Accreditation. ii) Increase of intake in the existing accredited programmes only. iii) To  allow  affiliation  for  new  programme  only  when  rest  of  the  other 

programmes are accredited. iv) To allow affiliation of  the existing programmes with  increased  capacity, 

if  the programmes are accredited. v) Since  international  accreditation  is  outcome  based, 

necessary  steps,  such  as orientation of  the  faculty members  and other stakeholders  to  outcome  based  education  and  accreditation  may  be taken.  

5.  Status in respect of 20 new IIITs being set up in PPP mode 

The MoU and MoA are still awaited  from  the State Governments of Kerala, 

Tamil Nadu,Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana. 

Detailed  Project  Report  is  awaited  from  the  States  of  Karnataka,  Bihar, 

Chhattisgarh,Goa, Jharkhand, Orissa, Maharashtra, Punjab and West Bengal. 

MoA  not  signed  as  Bank  Guarantees  have  not  been  submitted  for 

IIIT/Tripura. 

The Govt of Madhya Pradesh informed that 2 industry partners namely Core 

Higher  Education  Ltd  and  Trident  Ltd  finalized  due  to  unavoidable 

circumstances have withdrawn their offers of investment. The State Govt had 

intimated that a public sector undertaking was being finalised but response in 

this regard is still awaited. 

   

 

6. Central University of Gujarat 

 

Keeping  in view the constraints of availability of  land  in and around the twin city of 

Ahmedabad  and  Gandhinagar,  the  Government  of  India  agreed  to  reduce  the  land 

requirement of 500 acres and requested the Government of Gujarat in June 2011 to allot a 

total  area  of  land  (approximately  247  acres)  available  at  Lekawada,  Gandhinagar  for 

establishment  of  the  permanent  campus  of  the  Central  University  of  Gujarat  with  the 

specific condition that it will maintain atleast 50 acres as green area.  The matter was taken 

up  with  Government  of  Gujarat  several  times  including  reminders  from  the  Secretary, 

Department  of  Higher  Education.    The  matter  was  subsequently  raised  with  the  Chief 

Minister of Gujarat by the Human Resource Development Minister on 13.5.2013 in response 

to which Chief Minister assured for immediate action and to render necessary assistance. 

 

In pursuance of the above, Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India 

vide  letter dated 24.06.2013 has again   requested the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Gujarat to 

transfer the  land to enable the University to start the development of permanent campus.  

No response received from the State Govt so far. 

 

7. Central University of Himachal Pradesh 

 

The State Government allotted 62 hectares of land at Dharamshala and 318 hectares 

of land at Dehra for the new Central University. Since the two pieces of land fell under the 

forest  cover,  the  State  Government  had  approached  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and 

Forests  for  exemption  and  use  of  allocated  land  for  the  educational  purposes.    As  no 

favourable  response was  received  from  the Environment Ministry,  the  State Government 

offered  another piece of  land  about  120 hectares  in  addition  to  the  62 hectares  already 

offered at Dharamshala itself.  A Site Selection Committee which included a representative 

of Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests,  inspected  the  land  in  June,  2013.      The  State 

Government  is  now  to  formalize  the  process  of  allotment  expeditiously  so  that  the 

university which is currently running in a temporary campus with very limited courses, shall 

be able to develop itself into a full‐fledged Central University. 

 

**** 

   

III. SUB MISSION ON POLYTECHNICS 1. SETTING UP OF NEW POLYTECHNICS

Government of India provides financial assistance to the State / UT Governments, limited to Rs.12.30 crores per polytechnic to meet the costs of establishing a Polytechnic in the unserved Districts / underserved districts, subject to the respective State / UT Governments providing land free of cost, meeting 100% recurring expenditure and also non-recurring expenditure beyond Rs.12.30 crores, if any. 287 Districts have been provided partial financial assistance under the scheme.

However, some of the Districts of a few States have not yet submitted the progress

reports and statement of expenditure of first installment sanctioned under the scheme. It is proposed that the concerned State Governments should take effective steps to utilize the entire amount and submit the statement of expenditure expeditiously so that the action may be initiated by the Ministry to release the second installment in time. State-wise details of such Districts will be made available at the venue of the meeting.

2. STRENGTHENING OF EXISTING POLYTECHNICS

Government of India has formulated a scheme to provide financial assistance to upgrade infrastructure facilities of 500 existing diploma level public funded polytechnics subject to a maximum of Rs.2 crores per Polytechnics. 500 Polytechnics have been provided partial financial assistance under the Scheme.

However, as per available information 43 Polytechnics have not re-submitted proposals /

recast proposals under the Scheme as per details given below – S.NO. NAME OF THE STATE NO. OF POLYTECHNICS 1. PUNJAB 1 2. RAJASTHAN 2 3. UTTAR PRADESH 5 4. ANDHRA PRADESH 1 5. KARNATAKA 2 6. TAMIL NADU 2 7. PUDUCHERRY 2 8. MADHYA PRADESH 2 9. CHHATTISGARH 12 10. A & N ISLANDS 1 11. BIHAR 12 12. MEGHALAYA 1 TOTAL: 43 The concerned State Governments may take necessary action to submit the revised/recast proposals to the Ministry immediately. Otherwise, it will be presumed that the State Government is not willing to avail financial assistance under the scheme for these polytechnics.

3. CONSTRUCTION OF WOMEN’S HOSTELS IN POLYTECHNICS

In order to enhance women enrolment in polytechnic education, the Scheme of Construction of Women’s Hostels envisages a one time financial assistance subject to a maximum of Rs.1.00 crore for each polytechnic, to be provided to 500 existing AICTE approved Government / Government aided Polytechnics, for the construction of women’s hostel in polytechnics. 499 Polytechnics have been provided partial financial assistance under the Scheme.

However, Polytechnics of some of the States have not yet submitted the progress

reports, statement of expenditure and audited utilization certificates of first installment sanctioned under the scheme. It is proposed that the concerned State Governments should take effective steps to utilize the entire amount and submit the statement of expenditure expeditiously so that the action may be initiated by the Ministry to release the second installment in time. State-wise details of such Polytechnics will be made available at the venue of the meeting.

4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH POLYTECHNICS (CDTP)

The Ministry provides 100% grants to the State Governments for implementation of the Scheme of Community Development through Polytechnics (CDTP), which aims at providing non formal, short term, employment oriented skill development programmes, through AICTE approved Polytechnics, to various sections of the community, particularly the rural, unorganized & disadvantaged sections of the society, to enable them to obtain gainful self / wage employment. Duration of training usually ranges from three to six months. These courses will be offered by the Polytechnics in its premises, as well as through extension centres, to be set up in nearby locations, from where, these courses can be offered to the local community. No fees are charged from the trainees under this Scheme and there is no restriction of age and qualification. 518 Polytechnics have been selected for financial assistance to implement the Scheme. ISSUES: - The grant for implementing the CDTP Scheme has been released to respective State

Governments for further release to Polytechnics. State Governments are requested to put in place a process for quickly disbursing the sanctioned funds to the implementing Polytechnics of the State, in a time bound manner so that targets under the scheme can be achieved.

- If feasible, possibility of transferring the CDTP Scheme grants received from the Centre

on lump sum/advance basis by State to concerned Polytechnic’s Bank Accounts may also be explored, so as to ensure timely availability of funds.

- As per available reports State Governments of West Bengal, Assam & Bihar are yet to

release the grant provided under CDTP Scheme to concerned Polytechnics. These States may initiate steps to expedite release of sanctioned funds.

- The Prime Minister’s Office is monitoring the monthly progress of the training programs

under the CDTP Scheme. State Governments may kindly instruct the Polytechnics in their State to submit the data in time to respective NITTTRs of their region to enable compilation of a report in the matter. 

IV. NOTE ON ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

1. Assessment and Accreditation- Definitions

Globally, quality assurance in higher education is defined as a process by which an institution is evaluated, at least in part, by an external body in its educational offerings The terms- “Assessment” and “Accreditation” imply, broadly, the evaluation of “Quality Status” of an institution.

In the context of Higher Education, “accreditation” means the process of quality control in higher education, whereby, as a result of evaluation or assessment or by any other scientific method followed by accreditation agencies, a higher educational institution or any programme conducted therein is recognised by it as conforming to parameters of academic quality and benchmarking of such academic quality determined by the appropriate statutory regulatory authority.

“Assessment” means the process involved in ascertaining or verifying the preparedness of a higher educational institution in terms of its physical infrastructure and human resources prior to the commencement of its academic programmes.

2. Benefits of Accreditation:

Enables an institution to know its strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities through an informed review process undertaken by a third party. .

Makes available reliable data, relating to compliance with quality parameters, to all the stakeholders (students/ government/ funding agencies/ employers etc.) as inputs in their decision making process

Fosters innovation and adoption of best practices.

Encourages intra and inter-institutional interactions.

Mandatory accreditation in the higher education would enable the higher education system in the country to become a part of the global quality assurance system.

3. Types of Accreditation World wide, two types of accreditations are in place: one is the Institutional

accreditation wherein quality of the Institution with reference to its competency to provide quality education is evaluated. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council, under the aegis of the University Grants Commission, undertakes this kind of quality assurance.

The other kind of accreditation is program accreditation which is assured on the basis of the outcome programme. In Technical Education, the quality as well as relevance of the programme is specially assessed and evaluated during the process of accreditation. This is to ensure the employability of the graduates and ascertaining the skill as demanded

by the profession. The National Board of Accreditation(NBA), under the aegis of the All India Council for Technical Education, undertakes this kind of quality assurance.

Over 150 countries have some kind of accreditation mechanism to ensure quality in higher education. Most the QA bodies are supported directly or indirectly by the respective governments.

4. Steps in accreditation process: It generally involves three steps with specific activities: (i) a self-evaluation process conducted by the faculty, the administrators and the staff of the institution or academic program, resulting in a report that takes as its reference set of standards and criteria of the accrediting body; (ii) a site visit, conducted by a team of peers, selected by the accrediting organization, which reviews the evidence, visits the premises and interviews the academic and administrative staff resulting in an assessment report, including a recommendation to the accrediting body; and (iii) examination of the evidence and recommendation on the basis of the given set of criteria concerning quality and resulting in a final judgment and the communication of the formal decision to the institution and other constituencies, if appropriate.

5. Steps undertaken to make assessment and accreditation mandatory for Higher Educational Institutions in India

(a) The Department of Higher Education, Government of Indian has already introduced the National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill, 2010, (NARAHEI Bill) in Lok Sabha . This Bill proposes the Central Government to establish a regulatory authority to register, monitor and audit the functioning of accreditation agencies which would be invested with the responsibility of accrediting higher educational institutions including universities, colleges, institutes, institutions of national importance and programmes conducted therein. Institutions imparting higher education beyond twelve years of schooling would be mandatorily accredited. Every higher educational institution and every programme conducted therein shall require accreditation in the manner provided in the proposed legislation. Higher educational institutions engaged mainly in agricultural education and research have been kept out of the purview of the proposed legislation.

b) The UGC has notified UGC( Mandatory Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012. The UGC Regulations stipulate mandatory accreditation of each Higher Educational Institution (HEI) after passing out of two batches or six years whichever is earlier. HEls so eligible, at the date of coming into force of the regulations, shall apply within a period of six months to the Accreditation Agency. The Regulations also have provisions for penalties by the UGC on HEIs in the nature of de-recognition from list of 12B institutions, withholding of grants, action under the Private University Regulations, public notice that the institution is not accredited etc.

c) The AICTE has approved the Regulations for Mandatory Assessment and Accreditation of Technical Institutions. These will be notified shortly.

6. Role of States in the regime of mandatory accreditation

In view of the provisions discussed in the previous chapters, the states have the

following role in the proposed regime of mandatory accreditation:

a) In the short term to initially disseminate amongst the State Higher Educational Institutions the need to undergo assessment and accreditation and familiarize them with the processes required. Assistance in this regard can be provided by NAAC/ NBA etc.

b) To impress upon and monitor the State Higher Educational Institutions to undergo assessment and mandatory accreditation. Consequences of non-compliance are already detailed in the NARAHEI Bill and UGC Regulations. A six month time period wef. 19th January, 2013 has been given to the institutions to apply for accreditation.

c) In the medium term to adopt mandatory accreditation as one of the norms for deciding state funding / intervention in a particular State Higher Educational Institution.

d) In the long term to explore formation of credible Assessment and Accreditation Agencies. In this regard, required assistance can be extended by NAAC/ NBA. Funding can be extended through Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan(RUSA).

e) To ensure the regular functioning of the State Higher Education Council. This Council can be a key to ensure setting up and functioning of Assessment and Accreditation Agencies.

7. Recognition of State Accreditation Agencies

Till the formation of National Accreditation Regulatory Authority, the UGC/ AICTE, through NAAC/NBA, will be the body according recognition to the State Accreditation Agencies. The procedure outlined in NARA HEI Bill will be applied for according recognition by UGC/ AICTE.

8. Structure of state QA bodies-

Basic provisions of a State Accreditation Agency should be in conformity with the NARAHEI bill. Thus each State Accreditation Agency should have the following features:

Registered as non profit entity in respective State.

Academically and financially an autonomous body.

Follow the methodology, criteria and procedure developed by NAAC and NBA.(This is important for the reasons mentioned in para 5.5 below)

Have Executive Committee(EC) with Director and support Staff.

Members of the EC to include 5 academicians within the state and 5 outside the state.

EC should have nominees of NAAC and UGC as ex-officio members

Appellate body should be defined. The NAAC and NBA can be considered as Appellate Bodies for decisions made by State accreditation Agency.

Adequate office space and training infrastructure.

9. Support from NAAC and NBA- this can be of the following nature:

Develop guidelines and procedures for setting up new QA bodies at state and national level.

Provide guidance and academic resources to new agencies about assessment and accreditation process.

Facilitate national and international exposure to new QA bodies

The NAAC and NBA have already been requested by the Central Government to dedicate exclusive wings for providing support to State Assessment and Accreditation Agencies.

********

V. Brief on National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT)

The National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NME-ICT) has been envisaged as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme to leverage the potential of ICT, in teaching and learning process for the benefit of all the learners in Higher Education Institutions in any time any where mode. The NMEICT Mission was approved on 2nd January, 2009, with an outlay of Rs.4612 Crores and was launched on 3rd February, 2009.

The Mission has following major components:

a. Content generation, 100% contribution being provided by the Centre. b. Connectivity to Institutions, 75% contribution being provided by the Centre and

25% from States/Institutions. c. Development of low-cost access devices (LCAD), 50% contribution from

Centre for the (Aakash devices). d. Virtual Labs & e-Books, to be accessed by students (free) from anytime,

anywhere. e. 50 DTH Channels, Free to air curriculum based education channels on all TV

Sets.

Content: A number of projects for development of e-content have been sanctioned under NMEICT scheme to various institutions in the country. For engineering Courses seven IITs and IISc Bangalore, under a programme called National Programme for Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL) project, have under Phase-I developed 125 web & 136 video based courses (each course of about 40 hour duration) in 6 engineering disciplines and the content is uploaded on Websites. Similarly under Phase II another 967 courses in 23 Disciplines that include Web and Video courses are getting completed and uploaded. In non engineering & under graduation subjects, CEC a unit of UGC, is developing e-content in 19 Subjects in Phase-I and 68 Subjects in Phase-II. As on 28.2.13, 4550 e-content program have been developed and 1000 e-contents on various subjects have been uploaded on CEC web portal. Similarly the UGC is engaged in development of e-content in 77 PG Subjects. Connectivity: The NME-ICT is to provide connectivity up to last mile through (i) 1 Gbps optical Fiber to universities/deemed universities and institutions of national importance, (ii) 15-20 VPNoBB connections of 512 Kbps speed each (upto 10 Mbps bandwidth) to colleges and polytechnics in the country and LAN of up to 400 nodes on average, has also been envisaged to be provided to the universities under this Mission. Similarly under National Knowledge Network (NKN) of NIC, optical fibre connectivity to the Universities and other institutions are also being provided.

As on 28.2.13, connectivity to about 400 Universities and 19,875 colleges have been provided under the NMEICT Mission. The connectivity has been established in Centrally and state funded Institutions, besides this Private Institutions have also been provided Connectivity.

Low-cost access devices (Aakash)

Under NMEICT, a project is being implemented by IIT Bombay for achieving following deliverables for student and teacher empowerment:

(i) Acquisition and testing of low cost access cum computing devices (Aakash); and

(ii) Hardware & software optimization of low cost access cum computing devices.

In the first phase one Lakh Aakash-II tablets have been delivered at a cost of Rs.2263/- a unit,. Aakash-II was launched by the Hon’ble President of India on the occasion of National Education Day i.e. 11th November, 2012. Aakash-II compared to its predecessor is an advanced version has a processor which is about 3 times faster; memory is twice as large and is capacitive touch screen as compared to resistive touch screen and is being procured by IIT Bombay. The LCAD’s (Aakash) have been distributed to technical institutions (like IITs, NITs, etc).

Virtual Labs & e-Books:

Virtual Labs numbering 89 have been launched on 23th February 2012. At present the engineering students are capable of using virtual labs in 9 disciplines and can conduct 769 Engineering experiments from anywhere & any time mode.

Mission is also making available: textbooks, reference books, research journals, learning material etc to learners, free of cost in e-form. Students can at present access more than 80,409 e-books and 3828 e-Journals procured under NMEICT from best of the publishers. Full text e-Thesis, of Indian Scholars, numbering 2224 and more is also available on the website

MHRD 50 DTH Channels: It is envisaged that NMEICT shall deliver e-content not only up to college & university levels, but also to homes. For this purpose the DOS, ISRO has been approached and it has allocated two Ku-band satellite transponders to MHRD. The DTH Committee has decided to begin delivery of curriculum based content through launch of 50 TV educational channels on 24X7 bases (live or recorded), in almost all the subjects being taught in universities and colleges in the country. The Content on DTH shall be delivered free of cost to learners across the country and the user has to acquire a set Top

Box & Dish Antenna etc., worth Rs1500/- with no recurring expenses. The lectures shall be delivered by outstanding teachers through 150 Teaching Ends being established at leading institutes in the country. The DTH programme has the potential to be viewed on 165 million TV sets and benefiting a population of more than 67% in the country. The educational content besides being viewed on TV sets is also expected to be viewed on PCs, Tablets (including Aakash), smart phones and on other personal devices in the country. The Teacher shall deliver live lessons with Multimedia material and in order to have live interaction with the teacher, students across the country can ask live question through video conferencing, mobile, land line, SMS, e-mail etc and get instantaneous reply of their queries from the teacher, further others watching the programme can also benefit from this interaction. The delivery of educational content by the MHRD is highly cost effective, has the potential to revolutionise education delivery across the length and breadth of the country and will help improving Gross Enrolment of Ratio (GER) in Indian education which at present is about 14% against world average of 23%.

The preparations on the project are on and the channels, free to Air, are likely to be launched in 4-5 months of time. For this purpose 150 Teaching Ends (TE) spread across the country from where the live content shall originate are being established, a number of TEs from leading State Universities can also be considered.

Talk to a Teacher:

Under Talk to a Teacher project sanctioned to IIT, Bombay A-VIEW developed by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham has been used as the collaboration tool for the National Teacher Empowerment Program. Prof. Deepak Phatak, IIT Bombay, leads the National Teacher Empowerment Program using A-VIEW to train thousands of college teachers across the nation. Under this program, in June-July 2012, IIT-B conducted a training workshop for 10,000 teachers, which were inaugurated by then Honorable Union Minister for HRD Shri Kapil Sibal. In November 2012, A-VIEW was used to train 14,000 teachers on a workshop on Aakash 2 Tablets. A total of about 40,000 engineering college teachers have been trained until the end of 2012 through one workshop or other. A total of a minimum of 1,50,000 teachers will be trained in the next three years.

***

VI.  ISSUES RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL EMPOWERMENT OF SC, ST and 

PwDs 

 

The National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986 modified in 1992 gives special emphasis 

on  the  removal of disparities  and equalizing educational opportunity by  attending  to  the 

specific needs of those who have been denied equality so far.  The Eleventh Plan had given 

highest  priority  on  education  as  a  central  instrument  for  achieving  rapid  and  inclusive 

growth.    The  Twelfth  Plan  has  stressed  upon  the  need  of  faster  and  more  inclusive 

development.   

 

2.  As a recognition of our vision, a number of initiatives are being taken by this Ministry 

both at school and higher education levels. Special emphasis is laid on education of children 

belonging to disadvantaged groups and simultaneously to provide greater opportunities for 

access  to  quality  education  at  all  level  by  taking  several  legislative  measures  and  also 

investing  in  infrastructure &  faculty, promoting  academic  reforms,  improving  governance 

and institutional restructuring.   

 

In  higher  education  sector,  37  Model  Degree  Colleges  have  been  sanctioned  in 

backward districts within 20 Universities in 8 States. 

 

3.  Several programmes/schemes have been  launched which also equally  lay emphasis 

on  education  development  of  students  belonging  to  SCs  /  STs  &  PwDs,  which  mainly 

includes Right of Children  to Free and Compulsory Education  (RTE) Act, 2009 and various 

students  support  initiatives  such  as  Scholarships,  Remedial  coaching  classes,  opening  of 

Equal  Opportunity  Cells  in  the  Universities,  Rajiv  Gandhi  Fellowships,  Post  Graduate 

Scholarship  for  Professional  Courses,  Post  doctoral  Fellowship,  Remedial  coaching  for 

NET/SLET, Preparatory classes for IITs, Interest subsidy on Education Loan etc.  

 

4.  Further, in order to  institute a sense of discipline and  inculcation of moral values  in 

youth, it has been decided to implement NCC as an elective subject with credit points in 30 

autonomous  colleges  from  academic  year 2013‐14  and will be extended  to  all other 400 

autonomous  colleges  and  interested  universities  from  the  academic  year  2014‐15.  This 

initiative will help  in  instilling values of emotional  integration, secularism, tolerance, sense 

of adventure and sensitivity to issues among youths. 

  

5.    In  higher  education,  various  schemes  like  Upgradation  of  existing  Polytechnics  to 

integrate  the  Persons with  Disabilities,  Higher  Education  for  Persons with  Special Needs 

(HEPSN), Teacher Preparation in Special Education (TEPSE), Financial Assistance to Visually‐

handicapped  Teachers  are  being  implemented.    As  per  provisions  of  PwD  Act,  3% 

reservation  (horizontally)  in  admissions  in  all  CFHEIs  have  also  been  provided  to  PwD 

students.   During 2009‐10, 1586 PwD students have been enrolled  in Central Universities.  

The UGC also provides a number of relaxations to PwDs in the NET examination. 

6.  Central Educational  Institutions  (Reservation  in Admission) Act, 2006 provides 15% 

and 7.5% reservation to SC and ST students respectively.   This has  led to  increase  in Gross 

Enrolment Ratio (GER) of SC students  in higher education to 11.11  in 2009‐10 from 8.37  in 

2005‐06.  Similarly, the GER of ST students has been increased to 10.28 in 2009‐10 from 6.60 

in  2005‐06.    The  share  of  SCs  and  STs  in  total  enrolment  in  Centrally  Funded  Higher 

Educational Institutions (CFHEIs) in 2009‐10 are  :  

(Share %) 

CFHEI  SC  ST 

Central Universities  10.7 18.0

IGNOU  7.4 8.6

IITs  13.1 4.6

IIITs, IISERs, IISc  17.2 5.8

NITs  13.9 6.9

IIMs  11.0 4.7

 

7.  To ensure benefits of various Schemes of Government of  India are reached directly 

to the SC & ST students, from 2011‐12, the Planning Commission has started earmarking of 

Plan funds for SCSP/TSP  in Annual Plans allocations separately. Accordingly, the MHRD has 

opened Minor Head ‘789’ for SCSP and for TSP Minor Head ‘796’.   For 2013‐14, the MHRD 

has earmarked an amount of `12363/‐ crores under SCSP and `6533/‐ crores under TSP. 

 

8.  However,  despite  a  number  of  initiatives  in  the  previous  Plan  periods,  there  is  a 

staggering difference among different groups. Hence, in order to have a targeted approach 

with focus on SC and ST dominated regions and convergence of various equity schemes in a 

composite  manner  to  address  the  educational  needs  of  the  disadvantaged  sections 

including the PwDs, a National Monitoring Committee has been constituted. 

  

   

ISSUES RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL EMPOWERMENT OF MINORITIES  

  The  recommendations of  the Sachar Committee and  the Prime Minister’s New 15‐Point  Programme  have,  inter  alia,  emphasised  the  need  for  addressing  the  relative backwardness  of  the minorities,  especially  of  the Muslims(  59.1%  in  comparison  to  the national  literacy rate of 64.8%) by various affirmative schemes for promotion of minorities’ education.  

2.  In  view  of  the  enormity  of  the  challenge,  the  successful  implementation  of  the Schemes made during the XI Plan for promotion of the minorities’ education,  is, therefore, being  continued  during  the  XII  Plan  with  renewed  vigor  and  with modifications/improvement  of  the  Schemes,  wherever  necessary.  This  is  considered essential  to usher  in equity and access of  the minorities  in education  for  their  social and economic inclusiveness.   

3.  The  Study  Report  of  the  NUEPA  indicates  poor  participation  of  the  minorities, especially of Muslims in higher education. In its 1st Report, submitted recently to the Govt., the  Standing  Committee  of  the National Monitoring  Committee  for Minorities  Education (NMCME) has looked into the current scenario and has given a number of recommendations for address the issues. The recommendations are presently under examination for finalizing actionable plans. 

4.  Department  of  Higher  Education  does  not  have  any  Scheme  exclusively  for  the minorities.  However,  for  promotion  of  minorities’  education,  while  implementing  the following  schemes,  the Minority Concentration Districts  are  given preference. During  the year 2012‐13, the Department of Higher Education has approved the following Schemes for the Minority Concentrated Districts (MCDs): 

Sl.No  Scheme  No of Units  Amount sanctioned (Rs. in Crore) 

1.  Model Degree Colleges  12  9.34 

2.  Girls Hostels  57  10.24 

3.  New Polytechnics  54  317.78 

 

5.  The physical targets for the above schemes, during the year 2013‐14, are mentioned hereunder: 

Sl.No  Scheme  No of Units  Action Plan 

1.  Model Degree Colleges  13  Action  plan  will  be  finalized  after receipts  of  proposals  from  State Govts./Institutions   and approval . 

2.  Girls Hostels  101  ‐do‐ 

3.  New Polytechnics  02  2 Districts  in Arunachal Pradesh and Delhi  can  be  covered,  if  the  State Govts. provide their consent  to meet recurring  expenditure      and  to provide free land . 

***** 

VII. ALL INDIA SURVEY ON HIGHER EDUCATION (AISHE)

All India Survey on Higher Education for the year 2011-12 has commenced on 21st March, 2013 and uploading of information by institutions on the portal (http://aishe.gov.in) is expected to be completed by 30th September 2013. A statement showing, state-wise, status of uploading of the data by institutions of higher education is attached. All States/UTs may be requested to ensure uploading of the data on the portal by institutions such as universities, affiliated/constituent colleges, PG Centres and standalone institutions before 30th September 2013.

AISHE 2012-13 is going to be launched in the first week of August, 2013. Data uploading on the AISHE portal may please be ensured by the universities and their affiliated/constituent colleges, PG Centres and standalone institutions at the earliest.

***

 

  

State ‐ wise Progress of the Survey 2011‐12

TotalForm 

Uploaded

% 

CompletionTotal

Form 

Uploaded

% 

CompletionTotal

Form 

Uploaded

% 

Completion

Andaman & Nicobar Islands 6 1 17 4

Andhra Pradesh 47 9 19 4817 921 19 1008 83 8 03.05.2013

Arunachal Pradesh 3 1 33 19 11

Assam 9 486 1 0 62 2 3

Bihar 20 1 5 635 10 2 68 2 3

Chandigarh 3 27 5

Chhatisgarh 19 1 5 636 34 5 96

Dadra & Nagar Haveli 4 2

Daman & Diu 3 4

Delhi 26 1 4 185 37 20 112

Goa 2 47 10

Gujarat 37 5 14 1918 332 17 525 9 2

Haryana 23 3 13 1065 82 8 322 1 0

Himachal Pradesh 18 4 22 300 59 20 75 5 7

Jammu and Kashmir 11 216 46 1 2

Jharkhand 12 1 8 187 56

Karnataka 43 7 16 3304 461 14 1940 625 32 06.04.2013

Kerala 17 2 12 962 3 0 590

Madhya Pradesh 28 4 14 2019 84 4 384

Maharashtra 44 8 18 4646 328 7 2642 228 9

Manipur 3 2 67 78 2 3 17

Meghalaya 10 61 9 15 20 1 5

Mizoram 3 3 100 29 21 72 9 7 78

Nagaland 4 52 6 12 9

Odisha 19 1 5 1099 9 1 255

Puducherry 4 86 9 10 57 1 2

Punjab 17 2 12 960 2 0 290

Rajasthan 44 2450 3 0 552 1 0

Sikkim 6 16 1 6 5

Tamil Nadu 59 3 5 2024 8 0 1458 5 0

Tripura 3 1 33 40 6 15 10

Uttar Pradesh 59 1 2 4086 18 0 585

Uttrakhand 19 347 2 1

West Bengal 26 3 12 859 15 2

All India 638 63 10 33669 2464 7 11229 971 9

State

University College Stand Alone

17‐Jul‐2013

Workshop 

Conducted on

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Andhra Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chandigarh

Chhatisgarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Odisha

Puducherry

Punjab

Rajasthan

Sikkim

Tamil Nadu

Tripura

Uttar Pradesh

Uttrakhand

West Bengal

All India

State

State ‐ wise Progress of the Survey 2011‐12

TotalForm 

Uploaded

% 

CompletionTotal

Form 

Uploaded

% 

CompletionTotal

Form 

Uploaded

% 

CompletionTotal

Form 

Uploaded

% 

CompletionTotal

Form 

Uploaded

% 

Completion

1 1 2

184 129 654 83 13 31 10

3 6 2

20 22 2 9 17 3

19 1 5 35 11 1 1 100 2

1 3 1

25 47 12 9 3

1 1

2 2

40 18 15 21 18

6 1 2 1

104 2 2 357 6 2 45 13 1 8 6

197 1 1 59 42 19 5

34 17 5 29 24

17 23 1 4 6

25 5 18 6 2

299 7 2 1092 533 49 519 85 16 24 6

74 272 230 7 7

99 170 91 18 6

1160 16 1 1282 207 16 116 69 5 7 15

3 8 6

2 10 7 1 14 1

2 2 100 3 1 33 4 4 100

4 4 1

122 85 40 6 2

10 1 10 46 1

104 29 153 2 2

175 1 1 199 157 17 4

2 2 1

451 3 1 823 168 1 1 8 8 1 13

3 4 3

258 75 130 110 12

3447 34 1 4829 755 16 2478 174 7 363 7 2 112 1 1

Technical Teacher Training PGDM Institute under Ministries

Stand Alone

17‐Jul‐2013

Nursing