NITI Aayog

Choose Report Type

Publications

Publication Date

Mon, 02/10/2025 - 16:15

Report Upload

Download (5.7 MB)

vertical

Education

PDF Text

Expanding Quality Higher Education
through States and

State Public Universities Research and Analysis Team
Dr. Shashank Shah Senior Specialist, Higher Education, NITI Aayog
Oshin Dharap Consultant, Higher Education, NITI Aayog
Dr. Surender SinghConsultant, Association of Indian Universities (AIU)
Upragya KashyapYoung Professional, Higher Education, NITI Aayog
Rahul Saini Young Professional, Higher Education, NITI Aayog
Arnav Joshi, Chaitanyaa Nair,
Gauravi Pradhan, Harsh Kumar
Meghna Roy, Mitali Joshi, Sai Sushma
Interns, Higher Education, NITI Aayog
Suggested Citation
NITI Aayog. (2025). Expanding Quality of Higher Education through States and State Public Universities.
February, 2025.
Copyright and Disclaimer
Copyright@ NITI Aayog, 2025
Every care has been taken to provide correct and up to date information with references. However, NITI
Aayog shall not be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever, including incidental or consequential loss or
damage, arising out of, or in connection with any use of or reliance on the information in this document.
Readers of this document should be aware that the document may be subject to revisions. Also, maps are
for representation purposes only, and may not be to scale.
About the Photographs:
The cover page contains a collage of photographs of select State Public Universities (SPUs) from across
India. Photographs of architecturally majestic SPUs have been displayed throughout the report. The collage
of photographs next to chapter I captures select diversely designed universities from across India. Expanding Quality Higher Education
through States and

State Public Universities
Policy Report
February 2025 Table of Contents
Message from Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog��i
Message from Member (Education), NITI Aayog��ii
Message from CEO, NITI Aayog��iii
Message from Secretary General, Association of Indian Universities��iv
Acknowledgments��v
Executive Summary��vi
1. Achieving the Vision of ‘Viksit Bharat@2047’: Role of Higher Education ��01
2. Indian Higher Education Sector: Key Policy Milestones since Independence��05
3. Higher Education in India – Centre & States: Current Scenario��14
4. State Public Universities: Overview & Decadal Transformation��40
5. Stakeholder Consultations��60
6. Key Challenges��62
7. Policy Recommendations with Implementation Roadmap and
Performance Success Indicators��70
I. Quality��72
A. Improving Quality of Research��72
B. Improving Quality of Pedagogy and Curriculum��89
C. Digitalisation of Higher Education��95
D. Internationalisation of Higher Education��98
II. Funding and Financing��105
A. Government Funding��105
B. Diversification of Revenue Sources��110
C. Fee Autonomy��114
D. Taxation and Utility Payments��116
III. Governance��118
A. Improving Governance and Autonomy��118
B. Recruitment and Capacity Building of Faculty and Administrators��126
IV. Employability��133
A. Skilling and Employability Enhancement for Students across Streams��133
B. Academia-Industry Interface��139
8. References��144
9. Annexures 1, 2 and 3��147 List of Figures
FigureDescription
2.1Timeline of the Evolution of India’s Higher Education Policy Landscape
3.1Number of Universities in India (1950-2022)
3.2Number of Colleges in India (1950-2022)
3.3Number of Universities by Type in India
3.4Student Enrolment in Tertiary Education across countries
3.5Gross Enrolment Ratio in India (1950-2022)
3.6Enrolment in all university types based on gender
3.7Overall Pupil-Teacher Ratio in India (2012-22)
3.8Number of overall research publications as per NIRF (2011-12 & 2021-22)
3.9Share of publications of the top 100 institutions (Overall Category)
3.10Government expenditure on Tertiary Education as % of GDP (2021)
3.11Government budget on Tertiary Education
3.12Government expenditure on Tertiary Education per capita (2021)
3.13NAAC Accreditation of Universities
4.1Level-wise Student Enrolment in SPUs
4.2Enrolment in SPUs based on gender
4.3PWD Student Enrolment in SPUs
4.4Teachers across academic positions in SPUs
4.5Teachers across academic positions in SPUs based on gender (2021-22)
4.6 Number of Hostels in SPUs
4.7State-wise expenditure on education as percentage of GSDP (2020-21)
7.1Summary of Policy Recommendations
7.2Recommendations for Improving Quality of Research
7.3Recommendations for Improving Quality of Pedagogy and Curriculum
7.4Recommendation for Digitalization of Higher Education
7.5Recommendations for Internationalization of Higher Education
7.6Recommendations for Government Funding
7.7Recommendations for Diversification of Revenue Sources
7.8Recommendations for Fee Autonomy
7.9Recommendations for Taxation and Utility Payments
7.10Recommendations for Improving Governance and Autonomy
7.11
Recommendations for Recruitment and Capacity Building of Faculty and
Administrators
7.12
Recommendations for Skilling and Employability Enhancement for Students across
Streams
7.13Recommendations for Academia-Industry Collaboration Approach List of Maps
MapDescription
3.1University Density across states/UTs (2021-22)
3.2College Density across states/UTs (2021-22)
3.3Gross Enrolment Ratio across states/UTs (2011-12 & 2021-22)
3.4Gender Parity Index across states/UTs (2021-22)
3.5Pupil-Teacher Ratio across states/UTs (2011-12 & 2021-22)
3.6Institution’s Innovation Councils across states/UTs (2024)
3.7Percentage of Accredited Universities across states/UTs (2022)
3.8
State-wise distribution of the Top 100 universities across states/UTs(Universities
category)
4.1State-wise number of SPUs
4.2SPU Density across states (2021-22)
4.3Gender Parity Index in SPUs (2021-22)
4.4
Number of SPUs in the top 100 universities across India (2016 & 2024)
(Universities category)
4.5Number of top 50 SPUs in India as per NIRF (SPU Category)

List of Tables
TableDescription
3.1Number of Universities by Type in India (2021-22)
3.2Student Enrolment based on Gender (2021-22)
3.3Teachers across academic positions at All-India level (2021-2022)
4.1Number of different types of institutions associated with SPUs (2021-22)
4.2Level-wise Student Enrolment in SPUs
4.3Student Enrolment from SEDGs in SPUs
4.4Analysis of Expenditure by States/UTs on Higher Education (2020-21)
4.5List of Top 50 SPUs in NIRF 2024
4.6Criteria for NIRF Rankings 2024
AbbreviationDescription
ABCAcademic Bank of Credits
AICTE All India Council for Technical Education
AISHE All India Survey on Higher Education
AIUAssociation of Indian Universities
ANRFAnusandhan National Research Foundation
ASSOCHAM Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry
CIIConfederation of Indian Industry
CUCentral University
DUDeemed-to-be University
FICCI Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry
GERGross Enrolment Ratio
GPIGender Parity Index
HEFAHigher Education Financing Agency
HEIHigher Education Institution
INIInstitutes of National Importance
NAACNational Assessment and Accreditation Council
NCrFNational Credit Framework
NETFNational Educational Technology Forum
NIRFNational Institutional Ranking Framework
NTANational Testing Agency
ONOSOne Nation One Subscription
PM-USHA Pradhan Mantri Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan
PTRPupil-Teacher Ratio
RISERevitalising Infrastructure and Systems in Education
RUSARashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan
SCHEState Council of Higher Education
SEDGSocially and Economically Disadvantaged Groups
SPUState Public University
TLRTeaching, Learning & Resources
UGCUniversity Grants Commission
List of Abbreviations MESSAGE FROM VC MESSAGE FROM
MEMBER MESSAGE FROM CEO MESSAGE FROM
SECRETARY GENERAL,
AIU viExpanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Executive Summary
As India stands at the cusp of a transformative journey, envisioning itself as a Viksit Bharat by 2047,
the role of human capital is the most fundamental. The children and youth of India can be nurtured
to become competent, productive and responsible only through the foundation of education.
Hence, education, especially higher education is a crucial lever in this process of transforming India
into a Viksit Bharat, and a crucial pillar to sustain the edifice of a Viksit Bharat.
With the world’s largest working age population — a demographic advantage extending

over
the next two decades — and the second largest higher education system in the world, India is
uniquely positioned to meet the human capital demands of our growing economy and become a
global talent and innovation hub. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which has come at an
opportune time, provides a transformative roadmap for this purpose.
Central Universities and Institutes of National Importance are the flagship institutions of higher
education in India that excel in frontier areas of knowledge on national and international platforms.
However, it is the 495 State Public Universities and their over 46,000 affiliated institutions that
account for 81% of the total student enrolment and hence play a vital role in ensuring access to
higher education across the length and breadth of India.
Technically, Universities established or incorporated by a Provincial Act or by a State Act, and funded
by the State Government, are called State Public Universities (SPUs). Hence, they come under the
predominant responsibility of State Governments. However, given their phenomenal reach and
hence their vital role in grooming talent across the country that is vital for becoming a Viksit
Bharat, their transformation into institutions of excellence is a collective national responsibility.
Over the last 70+ years, the nationwide growth and expansion of SPUs has been primarily driven
to increase access to affordable higher education, particularly in remote and underserved regions.
This has been essential in meeting the rising demand for higher education and addressing regional
imbalances in educational access. Hence, SPUs serve as regional hubs for higher education, catering
to over 3.25 crore students across India. By 2035, the NEP 2020 target is to double enrolment
in our higher education institutions from 4.33 crores to nearly 9 crore students. Bulk of these
will continue to be in SPUs. Hence, it is of utmost importance that SPUs transition from focusing
on access to higher education to delivering quality higher education. The current study has been
initiated with the objective of catalyzing and facilitating this very transition with comprehensive
policy recommendations.
This Report on ‘Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities’
is an outcome of extensive consultations with Government Officers from over 20 States and
Union Territories, Vice Chancellors and Senior Academics of 50 leading SPUs, and Heads of several
State Higher Education Councils. While it is ambitious in its scope, it is tempered with pragmatism
and ground realities as it has captured the distilled essence of the experiences and insights of
eminent academics and officers from across India. viiExpanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
This Report is divided into 7 chapters. The first 4 chapters outline the history and achievements
of India’s Higher Education Sector – its role in achieving the vision of Viksit Bharat, key policy
milestones since Independence, the current status of higher education, and the centrality of SPUs in
the higher education landscape. Chapter 5 details the consultative process. Chapter 6 highlights the
thematic challenges identified during the consultations, which revolve around the 4 major themes
of quality, funding and financing, governance, and employability. Chapter 7 provides detailed policy
recommendations with short, medium and long-term implementation roadmap and performance
success indicators, to address the challenges emerging from the stakeholder consultations and by
synthesizing the insights gained therefrom.
Nearly 80 policy recommendations have been provided under 12 sub-themes across the 4 major
thematic areas along with over 125 performance success indicators. Under quality, the focus is on
improving the quality of research, pedagogy and curriculum, digitalization and internationalization
of higher education. Under funding and financing, the focus is on government funding, diversification
of revenue sources, taxation and utility payments, enhanced funding for faculty recruitment and
retention, and fee autonomy. Under governance, the focus is on improving institutional governance
structures, and capacity building of faculty and administrators. Under employability, the focus is on
skilling and employability enhancement for students across streams, and strengthening academia-
industry interface.
India’s students and youth account for 50% of our population. They will be the leaders of a Viksit
Bharat. Hence, it is our duty and responsibility to provide them with the ability and nobility
through the right ecosystem and opportunities to realise their full potential and become the
best version of themselves. With their energy and enthusiasm, creativity and commitment, we can
create a Bharat that is a global talent hub and a leader in education and research, innovation and
entrepreneurship. 1Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Chapter I
ACHIEVING THE VISION OF ‘VIKSIT BHARAT@2047’:
ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
India stands at a historic crossroads, at the cusp of a transformative journey, envisioning itself as Viksit
Bharat – a developed nation by 2047. This vision is characterised by equity and sustainability, inclusion
and innovation, prosperity and self-reliance, all of which are based on the foundation of education
(Vidya). Higher education is a crucial lever for this process of transforming India into Viksit Bharat. It
is the philosophical and cultural foundation upon which civilisations are built. India’s march towards
becoming a Viksit Bharat will be substantially determined by how effectively it can harness the power
of higher education to create knowledge, foster innovation, and produce leaders capable of navigating
through an increasingly complex world with ability and nobility.
1. Higher Education in Ancient India
Education in India is deeply embedded in its ancient philosophical tradition, where Vidya was seen
not merely as the accumulation of knowledge but as the means for holistic self-empowerment. It laid
emphasis on the concentration of the mind rather than mere collection of facts. In the ancient Indian
texts, it is said that “The wealth of knowledge is indeed the supreme among all forms of wealth” (
विद्याधनं
सर्वधनं प्रधानम्
) and ‘True education is that which liberates one from the shackles of ignorance” (सा विद्या
या विमुक्तये
). This philosophical framework celebrates knowledge as a force that shapes individuals to
escape the constraints of ignorance. In Indian culture, attaining knowledge is a sacred duty. From the
Gurukuls of ancient India, where students imbibed not only academic knowledge but also arts, ethics and
philosophy, to the modern education system, the country has always regarded education as a means to
both personal and societal upliftment.
This culture of a continuous pursuit of knowledge scented the classrooms of Takshashila, Nalanda,
Vikramshila, Odantapuri, Vallabhi, Kashi, Ujjain and Pushpagiri. These centres of learning, established
several millennia ago, were unparalleled in their time, attracting hundreds of students and scholars
from across the world as far as Japan in the east and Greece in the west. With the emergence of large
educational centres, legendary accounts in the non-canonical Buddhist Jataka prose describe students
journeying to Takshashila to study under renowned teachers.
In later well-documented instances, students travelled across India to attend prestigious institutions such
as the universities of Nalanda and Vallabhi, or the temple schools in Kanchi, among others. (Scharfe, 2002)
Similarly,Takshashila was one of the earliest multidisciplinary universities in the world, where numerous
branches of learning were studied ranging from painting and handicraft to medicine and economics.
Charaka, the Ayurvedic healer who was one of the leading authorities on Indian medicine is known to
have studied at this institution. The Sanskrit grammarian Panini and Chanakya (also known as Kautilya),
the author of the Arthashastra, worked at this University (Lowe & Yoshihito, 2016). These institutions
laid the foundation for a culture that revered education, critical thinking, and global perspectives. Their
collapse and destruction due to invasions in the early centuries of the second millennium marked a
significant setback for Indian higher education. However, their legacy remains a source of pride and
inspiration as India seeks to reclaim its intellectual heritage on the world stage. 2Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2. Higher Education in the Colonial Period
The onset of the British colonial rule in the 18
th
century marked a rapid decline of indigenous
educational systems and cultural heritage. The colonial administration,with a desire of creating an
English-speaking administrative class, introduced various measures. The higher education system became
utilitarian, primarily designed to create a workforce for administrative roles. Mount Stuart Elphinstone’s
Minutes of 1823 and Macaulay’s Minutes of 1835 laid the groundwork for an English education system
in India. This led to the establishment of universities in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay in 1857, modelled
after the University of London, and reflecting this shift towards Western education. The colonial
period left an indelible mark on Indian higher education, with its structure and emphasis on English
language instruction and a centralized, examination-focused system that carried over into the post-
independence era.
3. Role of Higher Education in Independence and Nation Building
In later decades of the 19
th
century, visionary leaders like Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananda,
Mahatma Gandhi and Sri Aurobindo offered profound insights into the role of education in shaping the
nation’s future. Rabindranath Tagore famously said that “The highest education is that which does not merely
give us information but makes our life in harmony with all existence.” Swami Vivekananda emphasised the
importance of education by stating that “We want that education by which character is formed, strength of
mind is increased, the intellect is expanded, and by which one can stand on one’s own feet.” Mahatma Gandhi
advocated for an education that nurtured holistic individuals. He said that “Literacy in itself is no education.
Literacy is neither the end of education nor even the beginning. By education, I mean an all-round drawing out
of the best in the child and man—body, mind, and spirit.” Sri Aurobindo envisioned education as a path to
individual and national perfection, believing that “The object of education is to train the individual to pursue
the ideal of perfection, for the nation to serve the ideals of national life, and for humanity to realise its highest
ideals.” Together, these leaders laid the intellectual foundation for an education system based on ancient
Indian civilizational wisdom that could drive India’s growth, and foster both personal development and
national progress.
Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 3Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
In the early decades of the 20
th
century, when the globe was jolted by the world wars, India was fervently
working towards her political independence. Higher educational institutions (HEIs) in India served as
centres of intellectual renaissance and nationalism. Institutions like the Banaras Hindu University (BHU)
and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) produced eminent leaders across professions.
4. Role of Higher Education in Independent India
The post-independence period witnessed a renewed focus on higher education, recognizing its immense
role in rebuilding the nation and laying the foundation for its scientific and industrial progress.
Establishment of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs),
Central Universities, and other institutions of excellence was a visionary step in shaping modern India’s
higher education landscape. The vision, mission, and values of these eminent institutions of learning
were to align with the strategic vision of the nation and set the tone for its development. Following the
recommendations of the Sarkar Committee (1945) to build institutions that could produce world-class
engineers to drive India’s post-independence industrialization, the first IIT was set up in Kharagpur in
1951. Since then, 23 IITs have emerged as leaders in engineering and technical education. Similarly, in the
late 1950s, the Planning Commission of India recommended the establishment of management institutes
to fulfil the need for quality management education in India, after which the first IIM was established
in Calcutta in 1961. Today, 21 IIMs established in phases over the last 7 decades are synonymous with
excellence in business and management education, contributing to leadership across sectors globally.
Central Universities were founded to promote interdisciplinary research and uphold academic rigour
across diverse fields. By 2023, 56 Central Universities had been setup across states and union territories.
These institutions remain critical to India’s higher education ecosystem, by producing top-tier graduates,
nurturing talent that powers industries, governance, and thought leadership.
In addition to Central Universities, India has a large number of State Public Universities. Universities
established or incorporated by a Provincial Act or by a State Act, and funded by the State Government,
are called State Public Universities (SPUs). The All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) report
2021-22 stated that SPUs account for 81% of the total student enrolment among Indian HEIs. Thus,
they act as the backbone of this vast and interconnected educational ecosystem by serving crores
of students across diverse regions and socio-economic backgrounds. These nearly 500 institutions
along with thousands of affiliated colleges provide accessible, affordable and inclusive education for all,
particularly in the hinterland. With their vast reach and influence, SPUs hold the potential to give a voice
to local innovators, nurture regional talent, and significantly contribute to nation-building.
5. The Potential of Higher Education
India is now in a position where it can make a quantum leap to become a developed nation in the
next 25 years. To leverage its demographic dividend, it must place higher education at the centre of its
development strategy like its peer nations that have gone on to transform themselves from developing
to developed economies . With such strong youth power, India must not depend on imported knowledge
and human resources to fuel its growth. Instead it needs to focus on building a thriving entrepreneurial
ecosystem for its home-grown pool of talent and ultimately solve national and global challenges. From
the Silicon Valley’s tech giants, where one-third of the workforce is of Indian origin and 25% of start-
ups are led by them, to key roles in banking and healthcare systems across Europe, North America and
West Asia, alumni of Indian HEIs have secured prominent positions in leading global institutions and
proven their mettle across sectors. The potential of the Indian higher education system shines through 4Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
global business icons leading global MNCs and multilateral institutions who are products of the Indian
higher education system, underscoring its contribution to the world.
To build a Viksit Bharat where every student gets an opportunity to become a leader in their profession,
India must focus on creating a research-driven and innovation-led higher education system. In today’s
knowledge economy, research is a major contributor to innovation and economic growth. Students
must be encouraged to ‘create and lead’ rather than ‘consume and follow’. The National Education
Policy (NEP 2020) recognises this need and encourages interdisciplinary research, global collaborations,
internships while studying, multiple entry and exit options, and cultivating the much sought-after ‘21
st
century skills’. All the top institutions globally demonstrate practices like industry integration, global
collaboration, inclusivity, and multidisciplinary focus and serve as valuable models for enhancing India’s
higher education landscape.
Higher education’s role must also extend beyond academic excellence and economic contribution.
HEIs must embrace their responsibility as catalysts for social change and sustainable development,
actively mentoring students to build a sense of responsibility towards nature, patriotism, service to the
local community, and multicultural competence with empathy. This holistic approach will ensure that
growth is inclusive, sustainable and responsive to the needs of India.
6. Conclusion
It is a fact that no country has become a world power without a robust and dynamic higher education
system. If one were to look back historically, it was India’s system of higher education that made it
the Vishwa Guru in the centuries before the Common Era (CE). Oxford and Cambridge (Oxbridge)
have been instrumental in producing leaders and intellectuals who shaped not only the British Empire
but also the global society over the last millennium. The Ivy League institutions such as Harvard
and Princeton, and Institutes of Technology such as MIT and Caltech have been at the forefront of
technological innovation, contributing significantly to the rise of the United States as a global scientific
and industrial superpower over the last century. In China, universities like Tsinghua and Peking have
driven technological advancements, research, and economic progress, helping the country emerge as a
major player on the global stage in the last decade. These examples highlight the positive relationship
between higher education and national development. The prosperity of these nations can be traced
back to their investment in higher education, research and innovation, which has produced not only
skilled professionals but also thought leaders and innovators.
Hence, the role of higher education in achieving the vision of Viksit Bharat @2047 is without a parallel.
It is the fundamental basis for achieving the country’s aspirations for prosperity, social justice, and global
leadership. By drawing on its rich intellectual and cultural traditions, aligning with global best practices,
and fostering a research-driven ecosystem, India can build a higher education system that is globally
competitive. The NEP 2020 needs to be implemented in letter and spirit to ensure that India’s higher
education system can meet the challenges of the 21
st
century. The future of India depends not just
on the quantity of graduates it produces but on the quality of education they receive and the kind of
leaders they become. By investing in higher education today, India is investing in a future where it will
not only be a developed nation but also a beacon of knowledge, innovation, and leadership on the
global stage. The vision of a Viksit Bharat will be realised when every student, every researcher, and
every university contributes to the larger goal of nation-building, propelling India to its rightful place as
a knowledge superpower by 2047. 5Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
CHAPTER-II
INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR:
KEY POLICY MILESTONES SINCE INDEPENDENCE
At the time of India’s independence in 1947, the country’s education system was fraught with
challenges. India had only 17 universities and 636 colleges serving about 2.38 lakh students. The
literacy rate was alarmingly low at 14%, and expenditure on education constituted less than 0.5%
of the national income (Naik, 1947). This situation underscored the urgent need for comprehensive
education reforms to establish a robust system capable of addressing the country’s needs.
India realized the importance of education in national development and social progress early
on in its trajectory as an independent nation. It was built upon the visionary ideas of influential
educators and leaders of the time who sought to create a higher education system that would
focus on expanding access and improving quality. The vision was to create an ecosystem that would
balance India’s rich cultural heritage while addressing contemporary challenges in an increasingly
modernizing world. To transform the higher education landscape, various education commissions
were constituted and policies implemented. These efforts laid the foundation for the significant
expansion and evolution of India’s higher education sector that we see today.
To understand the course of development of the current educational policy, we trace its
development in different phases: Post-Independence Foundational Phase (1947-1985), Economic
Liberalization and Expansion Phase (1986-2005), Globalization and Reform Phase (2005-2019), and
Contemporary Transformation Phase (2020-Present) (Borthakur et al.,2024).
Figure 2.1: Timeline of the Evolution of India’s Higher Education Policy Landscape
1. POST-INDEPENDENCE FOUNDATIONAL PHASE (1947-1985)
This phase was marked by concerted efforts to reshape India’s higher education system to meet
the needs of a newly independent nation. The Radhakrishnan Commission (1948-49) set the tone 6Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
by proposing sweeping reforms to oversee the coordination and funding of higher education. It
recommended that universities should become teaching institutions rather than merely affiliating
bodies, including a new pre-university structure, and laid emphasis on research and professional
education. The Kothari Commission (1964-66) further refined these ideas, focusing on internal
transformation, qualitative improvement and quantitative expansion of the education system.
These efforts culminated in the first National Policy on Education in 1968, which laid the groundwork
for equalizing educational opportunities and promoting national integration. Throughout this
period, there was a consistent push to increase educational spending, with the goal of reaching 6%
of GDP, an aspiration that would be carried forward into subsequent decades. This foundational
phase was characterized by the challenge of transitioning from a colonial education system to
one that could serve the diverse needs of an independent India, with many of the ideas proposed
during this time continuing to influence education policy in the years to come.
I.1 University Education Commission (1948-49)
Chaired by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, then Professor at the University of Oxford (later Vice
President and President of India), this Commission focused on enhancing university education. Its
key recommendations included:
i. Placing university education on the concurrent list to allow both State and Central
Governments to legislate on it;
ii. Emphasizing the Central Government’s role in financing and coordinating special subjects
to maintain national standards;
iii. Transforming universities into teaching institutions rather than merely affiliating bodies;
iv. Establishing rural universities and colleges focusing on agriculture and industry, with
dedicated institutions for women;
v. The medium of higher education to be in regional languages, with English taught to ensure
access to global knowledge;
vi. Implementing mandatory health checks and physical training for students, and providing
comprehensive health services at universities;
vii. Development of professional education in key fields such as agriculture, commerce,
engineering, law, and medicine, with standardized Ph.D. admissions and increased research
scholarships;
viii. Structuring academic programmes with a three-year degree following 11 years of schooling,
ensuring 180 working days per year, and setting student limits for universities and affiliated
colleges;
ix. Improvements in faculty quality through better qualifications, pay scales, and retirement
policies;
x. Creation of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to oversee funding; 7Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
xi. Incorporating moral and religious education to develop character and civic responsibility
among students;
xii. Introduction of general education courses in the first year of university to provide a broad
foundation across disciplines;
xiii. Improving the examination system from memory-based to understanding-based
assessments; and
xiv. Greater autonomy for universities in matters of curriculum development and administrative
decisions, and restructuring universities as autonomous entities.
While not all recommendations were immediately implemented, the UGC was established in
1956, which was tasked with coordinating academic activities and maintaining standards of higher
education and research. The expansion of women’s education across all levels was also a significant
outcome. The Commission’s work laid the foundation for subsequent reforms and influenced
educational policy for decades to come.
1.2 Education Commission (1964-66)
Chaired by Dr. Daulat Singh Kothari, then Chairman, UGC, this Commission conducted a
comprehensive review of the education system and proposed significant changes. Established in
1964, it faced the challenge of aligning the education system with national goals and improving
its quality and relevance. The Commission recognized the need for the provision of laboratories,
libraries, sufficient strength of teachers and other staff as parameters to decide the number of
students to be admitted to a college or university. It recognized the need for funds for setting up
new universities. Some of its key recommendations included:
i. Giving special attention to postgraduate courses, training and research;
ii. The approach of clusters of centres to promote research and training;
iii. Various administrative reforms including greater autonomy for universities, establishment
of academic planning boards, and focus on dynamic administration techniques;
iv. Dispensing with the affiliating system to promote academic freedom and innovation;
v. Giving education annual grants equal to 6% of GDP;
vi. Internal transformation of the education system, qualitative improvement in teaching and
learning processes, and quantitative expansion of educational facilities; and
vii. Equalizing educational opportunities and linking education with national development goals.
The Commission’s emphasis on science and technology education was particularly influential in
shaping curriculum reforms. While not all its recommendations were immediately implemented,
the proposal to increase educational spending to 6% of GDP by 1986 became a long-term goal. This
Commission’s report laid the groundwork for the formulation of the National Policy on Education
in 1968, marking a significant step in creating a coherent national educational framework. 8Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1.3 National Policy on Education, 1968
This Policy represented India’s first comprehensive attempt to create a coherent national system of
education after independence. Facing the challenges of regional and social disparities in educational
access and quality, it proposed several far-reaching measures. It emphasized the promotion of
national integration through education, the equalisation of educational opportunities, and a
renewed focus on science education and research. It also stressed the importance of cultivating
social, moral, and spiritual values, and aligning education with the needs of agriculture and industry.
Special focus was given to developing facilities in agriculture, trade, medicine, arts, crafts, commerce,
home management and secretarial training as well as opening new universities.
The Policy promoted functional literacy through adult education campaigns and aimed at improving
self-employment opportunities for the youth. It highlighted the need to uplift the condition
of teachers, promote their academic freedom and improve their professional competence,
emoluments, and service conditions. It also focused on their training and education. Additionally, it
introduced a new educational structure of 10+2+3 to help retain students within the mainstream
education system and enhance educational infrastructure and opportunities across the nation.
2. ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION AND EXPANSION PHASE (1986-2005)
With the liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991, the higher education sector experienced
significant changes. The National Policy on Education (1986) focused on expanding access to
secondary and higher education by introducing concepts like open universities and rural universities.
This was further refined in the 1992 Programme of Action.
The economic reforms of 1991 led to a gradual shift towards privatization, with an increasing
number of self-financing institutions and private universities emerging. This privatization helped
meet the growing demand for higher education, while attempting to maintain the goals of equity
and quality established in earlier policies.
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 9Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2.1 National Policy on Education, 1986
The National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986, later updated in 1992 with the Programme of Action,
represented a significant shift in India’s approach to education in the context of rapid economic
changes. Addressing persistent challenges of access, equity and quality, the policy introduced several
innovative concepts. It emphasized ‘Education for Equality,’ aiming to use education as a tool for
empowering disadvantaged groups.
It proposed the creation of a national body to oversee higher education across various fields
including agricultural, medical, technical, and legal for better coordination and policy consistency. The
Policy also recommended the establishment of research facilities in universities across all disciplines.
A major innovation was the emphasis on open and distance learning to expand educational access.
It proposed the development of mechanisms for accreditation and assessment to maintain and
enhance the quality of higher education institutions. The UGC was to establish an Accreditation
and Assessment Council as an autonomous body, which led to the establishment of the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in 1994.
Key implementations included the creation of State Councils of Higher Education for better state-level
coordination, and a significant expansion of open universities and distance education programmes. The
1992 revision led to a ‘Plan of Action’ that focused on adult education and the development of rural
universities and institutions. It emphasized the need to assess and address the specific educational
requirements of rural communities and recommended the establishment of Rural Universities.
The 1986 policy, along with its 1992 updates, set the stage for India’s educational development
in the era of economic liberalization, balancing the needs for skilled manpower with the goals of
social equity and national integration.
3. GLOBALIZATION AND REFORM PHASE (2005-2019)
The period from 2005 to 2019 was characterized by efforts to reform and globalize India’s higher
education system in response to the challenges of the 21
st
century. The National Knowledge
Commission (2005) was established to advise the government on transforming India into
a knowledge economy. The Committee on Higher Education Report (2009) addressed the
fragmentation of higher education, advocating for universities as innovation hubs and a more
interdisciplinary approach to learning. Throughout this phase there was a growing recognition
of the need to balance expansion with quality, equity with excellence, and traditional knowledge
systems with global best practices.
3.1 National Knowledge Commission (2005)
The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) was established to advise the Prime Minister of India
on policies related to education, research, and intellectual property to make India competitive in
the knowledge economy.
The NKC made several proposals:
i. Establishment of 1,500 universities to achieve a Gross Enrolment Ratio of 15% by 2015,
and the creation of 50 national universities as examples of excellence; 10Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
ii. University autonomy and regulation with universities becoming self-regulatory bodies and
professional bodies being relieved of their academic oversight roles;
iii. Establishing an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE) to replace
existing regulatory bodies like UGC, AICTE and NCTE;
iv. Creating a flexible curricular framework that integrates skills training with academic depth
and facilitates mobility across disciplines;
v. Curricular and programmatic reforms including restructuring undergraduate programmes
to allow students to explore a broad range of subjects with significant mobility;
vi. All universities to offer a comprehensive range of knowledge areas, avoiding the creation
of specialised or single-discipline institutions;
vii. Existing institutions of excellence such as IITs and IIMs to be expanded into full-fledged
universities while preserving their distinctive characteristics; and
viii. Integrating all levels of teacher education into the higher education framework and designing
new governance structures to ensure university autonomy while maintaining transparency
and accountability.
Many of the NKC’s recommendations were implemented, including the National Library Mission,
National Translation Mission, National Knowledge Network, Right To Education Act, National
Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET), establishment of the National Skill Development Corporation
(NSDC), the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), and the National Institute of
Intellectual Property Management (NIIPM). The NKC significantly influenced the 11th Five Year
Plan’s approach to higher education, leading to increased research funding and the expansion of
premier institutions like IITs and IIMs.
3.2 Committee on Higher Education (2009)
Chaired by Prof. Yash Pal, then Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, it addressed critical issues
in India’s higher education system and highlighted that only about 12.4% of the eligible age group
(18-23 years) were enrolled in higher education, significantly lower than the global average at the
time. One of the key challenges it identified was the fragmentation of the system with numerous
colleges and universities operating under multiple regulatory bodies such as AICTE and UGC.
To tackle these issues, the Committee proposed several solutions including:
i. Establishment of a single regulatory body;
ii. Creation of the National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER), an
apex body to streamline governance and reduce regulatory fragmentation; and
iii. Need for interdisciplinary approaches, suggesting that at least 25% of courses in
undergraduate programmes should be from other disciplines.
The report on “Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education in India” submitted by the
Committee to the Ministry of Education, called for integrating research with undergraduate
education, and ensuring students are exposed to cutting-edge knowledge and research
methodologies. 11Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
4. CONTEMPORARY TRANSFORMATION PHASE (2020 ONWARDS)
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 marked the beginning of a transformative phase in
India’s approach to higher education, addressing persistent challenges such as low GER, quality
concerns and a fragmented ecosystem. The policy carried forward ambitious goals from previous
eras such as increasing the GER to 50% by 2035 and raising public investment in education to 6%
of GDP. The NEP 2020 envisioned the transformation of India’s higher education system into one
that is flexible, inclusive, and globally competitive while ensuring that students are equipped with
21
st
century skills.
4.1 National Education Policy, 2020
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, developed under the leadership of Dr. K. Kasturirangan,
former Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), represents a comprehensive and
transformative policy for India’s education system. Building on the work of the earlier committee
led by Shri T.S.R. Subramanian, former Cabinet Secretary, the NEP proposes transforming HEIs into
multidisciplinary universities, emphasizing a more integrated approach to learning that combines
academic rigour with practical skills.
Key reforms recommended by NEP 2020 include establishment of the Academic Bank of Credits
(ABC) for seamless credit transfer, the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) to
boost research and innovation, and the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI). The HECI
would streamline regulation while maintaining high standards through its constituent bodies like
the National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC) and National Accreditation Council
(NAC). NEP introduces flexible curricula with multiple entry/exit points and advocates for the
integration of vocational education into mainstream academia to enhance employability. It places
strong emphasis on equity and inclusion, proposing a Gender Inclusion Fund and Special Education
Zones to support Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Groups (SEDGs). It also focuses on
internationalization of higher education, promoting Indian languages, arts and culture while aiming
to position India as a global study destination. It emphasizes the integration of technology in
education through initiatives like the National Educational Technology Forum (NETF) and the
National Digital Education Architecture (NDEAR).
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad 12Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Implementation efforts have seen significant progress in a very short period of time. Some of these
are briefly listed below:
i. The National Testing Agency (NTA), established in 2017, has been mandated to conduct
unified entrance tests for higher education. Over the years, around 1 crore students have
registered on the platform every year.
ii. The Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) was set up in 2017 to finance infrastructure
in Central Government HEIs. In 2018, as a part of “RISE (Revitalising Infrastructure and
Systems in Education) by 2022” the scope of HEFA was expanded and its authorised
capital was enhanced to `10,000 crores. In 2024, the RISE scheme through HEFA has been
extended through 2025-26.
iii. The Academic Bank of Credit, launched in July 2021 as part of the “One Nation, One
Student ID” initiative, has registered over `30.56 crore students and 2,141 HEIs.
iv. To foster academic collaboration between Indian HEIs and foreign HEIs, the University
Grants Commission (Academic Collaboration between Indian and Foreign Higher
Educational Institutions to offer Twinning, Joint Degree, and Dual Degree Programmes)
Regulations, 2022 were notified in May 2022.
v. The UGC guidelines for transforming single-stream institutions into Multidisciplinary
Universities and autonomous degree-awarding institutions were issued in September 2022.
vi. The National Credit Framework (NCrF), jointly developed by the regulators of School and
Higher Education and Skill Development was released in 2023. It provides a framework for
accumulation of credits from academic courses, skill programmes, and relevant experience.
Along with the provision of Multiple Entry and Exit and Academic Bank of Credit, this
framework facilitates the seamless mobility of learners between various academic streams.
vii. The ANRF was established through legislation passed in August 2023, replacing the SERB
and aiming to advance research in India. This initiative received a significant budgetary
allocation of `50,000 crores.
viii. To provide an international dimension to higher education, enable Indian students to
obtain foreign qualifications at affordable cost, and make India an attractive global study
destination, University Grants Commission (Setting up and Operation of Campuses of
Foreign Higher Educational Institutions in India) Regulations, 2023 were notified on 7
th
November 2023 to allow the entry of higher-ranked foreign universities.
ix. In February 2024, the UGC introduced new enrolment procedures for Open and Distance
Learning (ODL) and Online Programmes, to ensure transparency by requiring students
to enrol only in approved institutions and register on the UGC-DEB web portal, and
Guidelines for the Institutional Development Plan with a focus on enhancing institutional
infrastructure and faculty capacity for multidisciplinary education and research.
x. From 1
st
January 2025, the One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) Scheme provides access
to over 13,000 journals for more than 6,300 government academic and R&D institutes
including Central and State Government Institutes, Universities and Colleges. This translates
to nearly 1.8 crore students, faculty and researchers getting access to high quality research
publications. 13Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
By balancing global competitiveness with cultural preservation, fostering innovation, and prioritizing
inclusivity, NEP 2020 aims to create a more dynamic and responsive education ecosystem. It
represents a bold attempt to address both long-standing issues and emerging challenges. It sets
the stage for a more flexible, inclusive, and globally competitive higher education system, which
will be the largest in the world by 2035. It not only equips students with 21
st
century skills but also
positions India as the global talent hub, the global startup hub, and a global knowledge leader.
The Way Forward
The evolution of India’s higher education system since independence is a testament to the nation’s
enduring commitment to intellectual advancement and social transformation.
The recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission in 1948 and the Kothari Commission in
1966 were pivotal in laying down a structured framework for higher education, emphasizing quality,
accessibility, and a holistic approach to learning. Subsequent National Education Policies, including
those of 1968, 1986 and the most recent 2020 have each contributed uniquely to the development
of higher education in India. The 1968 policy sought to promote a uniform system of education,
while the 1986 and 1992 policies introduced significant reforms aimed at improving the quality
and relevance of higher education. NEP 2020 aims to make higher education committed to access,
quality, and future readiness.
By implementing the recommendations of NEP 2020 in letter and spirit, Indian higher education
will become a key driver of social change, innovation, and national development, ensuring that the
vision of a Viksit Bharat is realized. 14Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
CHAPTER-III
HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDIA – CENTRE & STATES:
CURRENT SCENARIO
1. OVERVIEW
India is one of the youngest nations in the world with a median age of 28.2 years (World Population
Prospects, 2022). Youth in the age group of 15-29 years made up 27.2% of the population in 2021,
which is expected to decrease to 22.7% by 2036, but will still remain large in absolute numbers at
34.5 crores. (Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections for India and States 2011-
2036, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, July 2020) India accounts for nearly 20% of the world’s
young population. (World Economic Forum, 2018) This gives it a significant advantage since its
share of the working-age population is high and rising vis-a-vis its dependent population, with the
prospect for many more people to participate in the labour market and contribute to economic
growth. This is an enormous opportunity that is likely to last till 2047. Hence policymakers have
been and need to further ensure efficient pathways for youth to acquire quality higher education.
This chapter focuses on the efforts of the Central and State Governments to enhance the quality
and accessibility of higher education in India, particularly in the last decade. Various indicators like
access, quality, research and innovation, funding and financing, and governance of HEIs have been
considered while evaluating the performance of each state in this sector.
1.1 Growth of Higher Education Ecosystem in India
The higher education ecosystem has grown by leaps and bounds since the establishment of the
earliest universities in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras in 1857. In 1950-51, the country had a total
of only 30 universities and 578 colleges.
Figure 3.1: Number of Universities in India (1950-2022)
Source: Ministry of Education, AISHE 10-11, 21-22 15Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
The current number of universities depicts the noteworthy growth and progress of the Indian
higher education sector over the last 75 years. According to AISHE Report 2021-2022, there were
1,168 universities, 45,473 colleges and 12,002 stand-alone institutions in the country. This almost
40-fold increase in the number of universities is a significant achievement in creation of access
and facilities in the Indian higher education ecosystem. This approach is termed as ‘massification’
in contrast to the elitist education approach of the colonial period. (Powar & Chaturvedi, 2015)
Figure 3.2: Number of Colleges in India (1950-2022)
Source: Ministry of Education, AISHE 10-11, 21-22
As per AISHE reports, colleges include ‘only the affiliated and constituent institutions of Central
and State Public Universities’. The number of colleges has shown a noteworthy increase from 578
in 1950-51 and 1,819 in 1960-61 to 10,152 in 2000-01, but even more so in the last 2 decades
when the expansion has more than quadrupled, with the latest number exceeding 45,000.
1.2 Number of Universities by Type
Universities in India are classified into 6 broad types, the definitions of which are stated below and
their numbers are depicted in the Table 3.1.
• Central University (CU): A university that is established or incorporated by an Act of
the Central Government is called a Central University. There are 53 Central Universities
in India, and 1 Central Open University for distance learning.
• State Public University (SPU): A university established or incorporated by a Provincial
Act or by a State Act can be termed a State (Public) University. There are 423 State
Public Universities in India and 16 State Open Universities for technology-based distance
learning.
• Private University: It is a university established through a State or Central Act by a
sponsoring body viz. a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, or
any other corresponding law for the time being in force in a State or a Public Trust or a 16Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. There are 391 Private
Universities in India.
• Deemed-to-be University (DU): This Institution, commonly known as Deemed
University, refers to a high-performing institution, which has been so declared by the
Central Government under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC)
Act, 1956. There are various subtypes of these, like Deemed University - Government,
Government Aided, and Private. There are 124 Deemed Universities in India.
• Institution of National Importance (INI): It is an Institution established by an Act
of Parliament and declared as an Institution of National Importance, such as the Indian
Institutes of Technology (IITs), the National Institutes of Technology (NITs), the Indian
Institutes of Management (IIMs), among others. There are currently 153 INIs in India.
• Institution under State Legislature Act: It is an Institution established or incorporated
by a State Legislature Act. There are only 6 such institutions in India.
Table 3.1: Number of Universities by Type in India (2021-22)
State/UTCU
Central
Open
Univ.
INISPU
Institute
under
State
Leg. Act
State
Open
Univ.
State
Private
Univ.
State
Pvt.
Open
Univ.
DU
Govt.
DU
Govt.
Aided
DU
Pvt.
Total No. of
Universities
in the
State / UT
Andhra
Pradesh
3 1024 1 5    4
47
Arunachal
Pradesh
1 1

6 1 1
10
Assam 2 515 1 6 1   30
Bihar 4 617 1 1 7 1   37
Chandigarh   1 1     1
3
Chhattisgarh1 414 1 14
34
Delhi 6 1 6 9     6 1 1 30
Goa   2 1        3
Gujarat1 926 1 51 1 1 1 91
Haryana 1 520   24 3 3 56
Himachal
Pradesh
1 5 7   17
30
Jammu &
Kashmir
2 4 9 1
16
Jharkhand1 511   15    1
33
Karnataka1 633 1 20 2 12
75 17Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
State/UT CU
Central
Open
Univ.
INISPU
Institute
under
State
Leg. Act
State
Open
Univ.
State
Private
Univ.
State
Pvt.
Open
Univ.
DU
Govt.
DU
Govt.
Aided
DU
Pvt.
Total No. of
Universities
in the
State / UT
Kerala 1 6 14 1   2 1 25
Ladakh    1     1   2
Madhya
Pradesh
2 10 23 1 40 1   77
Maharashtra1 7 23 1 21 7 2 12 74
Manipur 3 2 3   2     10
Meghalaya 1 2    8     11
Mizoram 1 1    1     3
Nagaland 1 1    4     6
Odisha 1 5 19 1 8    3 37
Puducherry1 2        1 4
Punjab 1 6 12 1 18 1 1 40
Rajasthan1 5 26 1 1 49    7 90
Sikkim 1 1 1   6     9
Tamil Nadu2 7 21 1 3   2 26 62
Telangana3 4 15 1 1 4 1 2 31
Tripura 1 2 1   1     5
Uttar
Pradesh
6 11 32 1 1 31 2 3 4 91
Uttarakhand1 4 10 1 19 1 1 1 38
West Bengal1 8 35 1 11 1 1 58
TOTAL 53 1 153423 6 16 391 1 33 1081 1,168

Source: AISHE 2021-22
Note: There is no university in the UTs of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, and Lakshadweep. 18Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Figure 3.3: Number of Universities by type in India
Source: AISHE 11-12,16-17, 21-22
Note: The ‘Others’ Category includes the Institutes under State Legislature, Deemed University-Government,
Deemed University-Private, Deemed University-Government Aided, State Open University, State Private Open University,
Central Open University.
It is evident from Table 3.1 and Figure 3.3 that State Public Universities (SPUs) constitute the
largest share among Universities, followed by State Private Universities. Both types of universities
have seen rapid expansion in the last 10 years, indicating greater expansion of higher education
in the states along with the increasing dominance of private players in the higher education
sector.
1.3 University and College Density
Although India has made considerable progress towards expanding HEIs in the last two decades,
these universities and colleges are not equitably distributed across states. There are some notable
disparities between states which are measured using the university and college densities in Maps
3.1 and 3.2. 19Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Map 3.1: University Density across states/UTs (2021-22)
Source: AISHE 21-22
Note: There are no Universities in the UTs of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and
Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep.
University density is the total number of universities per 1 lakh eligible population (18-23 years of
age) in a state. The national average university density is 0.8. Sikkim has the highest density of 10.3,
followed by Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Uttarakhand. These are
all sparsely populated regions. In the highly populated states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal
and Maharashtra, density at the state level is below the national average, with Bihar recording the
lowest at 0.2. This indicates that while the absolute number of universities and colleges is rapidly
growing, their distribution among the population is unequal, especially in the high population states.
Hence, efforts need to be made to ensure equitable access to higher education by improving
university density in these states. 20Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Map 3.2 College Density across states/UTs (2021-22)
Source: AISHE 21-22
Note: There is no College in the UT of Lakshadweep.
College density is the total number of colleges per 1 lakh eligible population (18-23 years of age)
in a state. The national average college density was 30 in 2022. Karnataka leads with a density of 66,
which is more than twice the national average, followed by the states of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh,
Himachal Pradesh and Kerala. The UT of Puducherry has the highest college density of 53. The
states with the least college densities are Manipur, Bihar and Jharkhand. 21Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2. ACCESS
The key driving force behind ensuring equal access to higher education for all should
be that ‘no talented and deserving person should be denied access to higher education’.
(Powar & Chaturvedi, 2015) The government has made consistent efforts to ensure that
higher education is accessible to all. Access to higher education has been measured in this
report mainly based on two parameters: Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) and Gender Parity
Index(GPI). When it comes to enrolment in higher education, many students tend to drop
out of education at primary and secondary levels, thus adversely affecting the enrolment
ratios in the higher education sector. There is a need to curb the dropout rates at primary
and secondary school levels and encourage students to enrol in higher education. Moreover,
those who drop out early need to be brought back into the fold.
2.1 Students enrolled in Tertiary Education
Figure 3.4 Student Enrolment in Tertiary Education across countries (in millions)
Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics
According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012), “Tertiary education builds on secondary
education, providing learning activities in specialised fields of education. It aims at learning at a high
level of complexity and specialisation. Tertiary education includes what is commonly understood as
academic education but also includes advanced vocational or professional education. It comprises
ISCED levels 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are labelled as short-cycle tertiary education, Bachelor’s or
equivalent level, Master’s or equivalent level, and doctoral or equivalent level, respectively”. As of
2022, India had the second largest number of students enrolled in tertiary education with more
than 4 crore student enrolments, only behind China. The Indian number is far higher than that of
the USA, Brazil and Indonesia combined. 22Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2.2 Gross Enrolment Ratio in India
Figure 3.5 Gross Enrolment Ratio in India (1950-2022)
Source: Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan Report 2013, Statistics of Higher and
Technical Education 2008-09, AISHE 11-12, 16-17, 21-22
The Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) measures the number of students enrolled in higher education
as a percentage of the eligible population in the age group of 18 to 23 years. Higher GER values
indicate greater enrolment in higher education among the specified age group. Between 1950-
51 and 2021-22, GER in India increased 71 times, thus demonstrating the noteworthy success
in increasing student enrolments over the decades. India is also one of the best performers
among developing countries. Yet around three-fourth of the total eligible population is still not
pursuing higher education. However, with increasing student enrolments in HEIs, there is scope
for improvement of GER in higher education. This aligns with one of the key objectives of the
NEP 2020, which aims to achieve GER of 50% by 2035.
Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode 23Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2.3 Gross Enrolment Ratio in India across states (2011-12 & 2021-22)
Map 3.3 Gross Enrolment Ratio across states/UTs (2011-12 & 2021-22)
Source: AISHE 11-12 & 21-22
Note: Map 3.3 displays the decadal difference in GER across India from 2011-12 to 2021-22.
The numbers in the bracket denote the GER of 2011-12. The numbers outside denote the GER of 2021-22.
Though India is advancing in terms of improving the GER, the progress is not uniform across all
states. The state of Tamil Nadu and UTs of Chandigarh and Puducherry have shown maximum
improvement in GER. Tamil Nadu leads the country with a GER of 47%. Other states like Kerala,
Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra have GERs considerably higher than the
national average of 28.4. The UTs of Chandigarh, Puducherry and Delhi have notably good GER,
with Chandigarh recording the highest at 64.8%. Conversely, states such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha,
Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and some Northeastern States have low GERs compared to the national
average. Though Bihar, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have the lowest GER, the ratio has significantly
improved, and doubled in some cases over the last decade.
Despite having higher university densities, Meghalaya and Ladakh have lower GER as compared to the
national average. States with moderate university densities like Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Telangana have
a higher GER. This reveals that increasing the number of universities alone does not lead to higher
student enrolment, thereby indicating a need for better utilisation of capacity and resources. 24Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2.4 Student Enrolment across states based on Gender (2021-22)
Figure 3.6: Enrolment in all university types based on gender
Source: AISHE 11-12, 16-17, 21-22
Fig 3.6 depicts a slight improvement in the overall number of female enrolments which has risen
around 3% in the last decade, while the number is constantly improving in a non-uniform manner
across states. The near-equal representation of both genders demonstrates India’s progress
towards gender parity in higher education.
Table 3.2: Student Enrolment based on Gender
(in lakhs) (2021-22)
States/UTsMale Female Total
Andaman and
Nicobar Islands
0.05 0.06 0.11
Andhra Pradesh 10.29 9.00 19.29
Arunachal Pradesh 0.35 0.30 0.65
Assam3.34 3.44 6.78
Bihar14.47 11.75 26.23
Chandigarh0.55 0.56 1.11
Chhattisgarh 2.99 3.58 6.56
Delhi5.85 5.60 11.45
Goa0.35 0.30 0.65
Gujarat10.10 7.88 17.98
Haryana5.42 5.62 11.05 25Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Table 3.2: Student Enrolment based on Gender
(in lakhs) (2021-22)
States/UTsMale Female Total
Himachal Pradesh 1.47 1.73 3.20
Jammu and Kashmir 1.93 2.07 4.00
Jharkhand4.50 4.30 8.80
Karnataka12.58 11.79 24.37
Kerala5.55 7.50 13.04
Ladakh0.02 0.03 0.04
Lakshadweep0.00 0.00 0.00
Madhya Pradesh 15.06 12.94 28.00
Maharashtra 25.43 20.35 45.78
Manipur0.66 0.64 1.30
Meghalaya0.44 0.53 0.96
Mizoram0.23 0.24 0.47
Nagaland0.24 0.28 0.51
Odisha5.81 4.93 10.74
Puducherry0.45 0.50 0.95
Punjab4.35 4.24 8.59
Rajasthan14.30 12.59 26.89
Sikkim0.16 0.17 0.34
Tamil Nadu16.98 16.11 33.09
Telangana7.93 8.03 15.97
Dadra and
Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
0.07 0.06 0.13
Tripura0.54 0.47 1.01
Uttar Pradesh 36.69 33.04 69.73
Uttarakhand2.86 2.82 5.68
West Bengal13.76 13.47 27.22
All India 225.76 206.92 432.68
Source: AISHE 21-22
Note: Figures have been rounded off in some cases.
Table 3.2 indicates the student enrolments in universities based on gender. States like Kerala,
Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh have higher female enrolment rates than males, serving as
models of success for greater access to higher education for women. Geographically smaller states
and UTs like Chandigarh, Mizoram, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have relatively balanced
male-female enrolments, with differences of only a few hundred students. In some states like
Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, there is a higher enrolment rate
for males compared to females.Hence, there is a need for more targeted policies to encourage
female participation in higher education as per the unique context in these states. 26Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2.5 Gender Parity Index across states and UTs (2021-22)
The GPI in higher education across various states and UTs reveals notable differences in gender
balance. It is calculated by dividing the total female student population by the total male student
population in a state. The national GPI for 2021-22 was 1.01 compared to 0.87 in 2011-12, indicating
a 16% increase towards gender equality over a decade.
Map 3.4 Gender Parity Index across states/UTs (2021-22)
Source: AISHE 21-22 27Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Kerala has the highest GPI of 1.44, reflecting a strong gender balance with more female students
relative to male students. Himachal Pradesh follows with a GPI of 1.33, indicating a favourable gender
parity. Among UTs, Lakshadweep stands out with an exceptionally high GPI of 6.33, indicating a
very strong female representation in higher education. Ladakh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman
and Diu also have a high GPI of 2.19 and 1.93 respectively, reflecting substantial gender inclusivity
in the higher education systems of these UTs. Odisha and Tripura have the lowest GPIs at 0.88
and 0.89 respectively, indicating the need for focused policies and initiatives to enhance female
participation in higher education.
3. QUALITY
Access to quality education is a primacy of NEP 2020. Every HEI must constantly strive to maintain
and upgrade its quality standards to meet this vision. To measure the quality of institutions, four
broad parameters have been analysed: Faculty and Teachers, Pupil Teacher Ratio, Research and
Publications, and Innovation.
3.1 Faculty and Teachers
NEP 2020 places teachers and faculty at the centre of the teaching-learning process . It emphasizes
the importance of prioritising the recruitment of teachers, providing continuous professional
development, and ensuring positive working environments and service conditions for them.
Their expertise, teaching methodologies and ability to engage students are vital to ensuring
quality education. Investing in faculty development, ensuring favourable pupil-teacher ratio, and
the presence of well-qualified, motivated and experienced teachers directly influences learning
outcomes, student satisfaction and overall institutional reputation.
3.1.1. Teachers across academic positions at All-India level (2021-22)
Table 3.3: Teachers across academic positions at All-India level
(in thousands) (2021-2022)
States/ UTs
Professor
&
Equivalent
Reader &
Associate
Professor
Lecturer/
Assistant
Professor
Demo-
nstrator/
Tutor
Temporary
Teacher
etc.
Visiting
Teacher
All
teachers
Andaman and
Nicobar Islands
0.03 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.45
Andhra Pradesh 9.65 9.41 77.79 5.45 4.11 0.13 106.54
Arunachal Pradesh 0.23 0.27 1.61 0.09 0.10 0.01 2.29
Assam 1.57 3.30 15.90 1.01 1.52 0.04 23.34
Bihar 2.72 3.69 27.19 2.58 1.70 0.27 38.15
Chandigarh 0.75 0.60 2.07 0.02 0.27 0.02 3.73
Chhattisgarh 1.97 1.67 14.59 2.40 2.85 0.12 23.60
Delhi 4.08 4.57 12.03 0.52 1.58 0.17 22.93
Goa 0.31 0.61 2.61 0.08 0.22 0.08 3.90
Gujarat 5.75 7.62 37.35 6.09 2.72 2.28 61.80
Haryana 3.74 4.20 28.76 1.68 2.24 0.47 41.10 28Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Table 3.3: Teachers across academic positions at All-India level
(in thousands) (2021-2022)
States/ UTs
Professor
&
Equivalent
Reader &
Associate
Professor
Lecturer/
Assistant
Professor
Demo-
nstrator/
Tutor
Temporary
Teacher
etc.
Visiting
Teacher
All
teachers
Himachal Pradesh 1.13 1.18 7.24 0.98 0.33 0.05 10.90
Jammu and Kashmir 1.10 1.03 6.96 0.88 1.33 0.06 11.36
Jharkhand 1.10 1.18 10.75 0.96 0.99 0.10 15.09
Karnataka 17.64 16.16 89.03 15.21 11.35 1.50 150.89
Kerala 5.21 5.66 44.80 3.13 3.96 0.10 62.86
Ladakh 0.01 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.27
Lakshadweep 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Madhya Pradesh 8.92 7.34 53.71 6.56 5.41 0.53 82.46
Maharashtra 16.19 18.27 111.65 7.99 10.00 3.60 167.69
Manipur 0.39 0.73 4.61 0.22 0.26 0.06 6.27
Meghalaya 0.28 0.43 2.84 0.15 0.09 0.02 3.81
Mizoram 0.19 0.48 1.13 0.15 0.26 0.01 2.21
Nagaland 0.16 0.17 2.04 0.10 0.05 0.02 2.54
Odisha 3.52 4.42 29.66 3.89 1.99 0.25 43.73
Puducherry 1.08 0.85 3.79 0.77 0.11 0.00 6.59
Punjab 4.15 4.27 35.61 4.74 1.73 0.50 50.99
Rajasthan 7.75 7.29 62.71 4.12 1.04 0.30 83.19
Sikkim 0.11 0.17 1.15 0.07 0.02 0.00 1.51
Tamil Nadu 18.29 21.06 154.01 8.95 5.92 0.50 208.74
Telangana 7.54 8.12 61.93 3.71 2.65 0.14 84.09
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
and Daman & Diu
0.04 0.04 0.39 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.64
Tripura 0.16 0.26 1.35 0.46 0.21 0.06 2.51
Uttar Pradesh 17.13 16.25 125.90 7.71 10.70 0.52 178.19
Uttarakhand 2.57 2.12 12.63 1.04 1.11 0.06 19.52
West Bengal 5.99 7.28 42.41 3.94 13.28 0.93 73.82
All India 151.41 160.731086.53 95.75 90.37 12.901597.69
Source: AISHE 2021-22
Table 3.3 highlights the distribution of university teachers across different academic positions. India
has approximately 16 lakh teachers in HEIs, with the majority (68%) being Lecturers/Assistant
Professors. Readers/Associate Professors represent around 10% of the total faculty, followed by
Professors & equivalent at 9.5%, Demonstrators/Tutors at 6%, Temporary Teachers at 5.7%, and
Visiting Teachers at 0.8%.
Tamil Nadu leads with around 2 lakh teachers, particularly in the Lecturers/Assistant Professors 29Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
category. Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra follow closely. Smaller states and UTs such as Lakshadweep,
Ladakh, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu have less than 1,000 teachers, mainly due
to fewer HEIs. Larger states such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have a balanced
distribution across senior and junior faculty. States like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have a higher
concentration of teachers in junior positions.
3.2 Overall Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) in India (2012-2022)
Figure 3.7 Overall Pupil Teacher Ratio in India (2012-22)
Source: AISHE 11-12,16-17, 21-22
PTR is a significant indicator of educational quality, calculated by dividing the total number of
students enrolled by the total number of teachers at a particular level of education. The overall
PTR at the national level has been constant at 23 over the last 4-5 years. However, it varies across
states, with some achieving ideal PTR while others facing challenges in maintaining a basic standard.
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi 30Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
3.2.1. Pupil Teacher Ratio across states and UTs in India
(2011-12 & 2021-22)
Map 3.5: Pupil Teacher Ratio across states/UTs (2011-12 & 2021-22)
Source: AISHE 11-12 & 21-22 (Teachers in Regular Mode)
Note: Map 3.5 indicates teachers in Regular Mode. It represents a decadal difference in PTR, with figures in brackets denoting the
PTR for 2011-12, and figures outside denote PTR for 2021-22.
In 2021-22, Tamil Nadu led with a PTR of 14, significantly higher than the national average of 23.
Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, and Punjab also rank high with PTR of 15. States like Bihar, Jharkhand,
Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh have seen a lower PTR in 2021-22 when compared to 2011-12.
These states have experienced an increase in the number of students without a rise in the number
of teachers, leading to the declining PTR. These differences reiterate the necessity for targeted
policies to recruit and train more educators, especially in lagging states, to ensure equitable access
to quality education.
3.3 Research and Publications
As institutions serving a large and diverse student population, HEIs in India have the potential to
contribute significantly to the nation’s intellectual and economic growth by investing in research
and development (R&D). HEI’s research output can strengthen academia-industry collaborations,
influence policy-making, and promote sustainable development. By focusing on R&D, Indian HEIs
can contribute to advancements in science, technology, and society, while also building a skilled and
competitive workforce. 31Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Figure 3.8 Number of overall research publications as per NIRF (2011-12 & 2021-22)
Source: NIRF Rankings Report 2017, 2024
India’s contribution to global research publications has increased from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.2% in 2024.
However, the share of higher education in the total research publications of India is just 10%. India’s
research environment is rapidly evolving, with increasing global recognition of its contributions
across multiple disciplines. The doubling of total research output from 2017 to 2024 reflects the
country’s commitment to strengthening its academic and research infrastructure, driving both
national development and international collaborations. However, the number of researchers in
India remains smaller than countries like the United States, China, Japan, Russia and Germany. The
academic institutions in India are often under-resourced, presenting a challenge that needs to be
addressed for India to compete globally in research and innovation (Rao et al., 2015).
Figure 3.9: Share of publications of the top 100 institutions (Overall Category)
Source: NIRF Rankings, 2024 32Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
In the NIRF 2024 rankings for the overall category, the IITs lead in research output, with 16
institutions contributing over 24% of total publications. Private Deemed Universities follow closely
with 22 institutions accounting for approximately 23.5% of total publications. Despite having 23
institutions in the top 100, State Public Universities contribute only 14.7% of the total publications,
highlighting significant room for improvement in their research performance.
3.4 Innovation
In 2018, the Ministry of Education, through its Innovation Cell and in collaboration with AICTE,
launched the Institution’s Innovation Council (IIC) programme to promote innovation and
entrepreneurship in HEIs. IICs aim to engage faculty, students and staff in activities like ideation,
problem-solving, design thinking and project management at the pre-incubation/incubation stages.
The programme addresses challenges such as uncoordinated innovation activities, limited leadership
involvement, and underutilized youth potential, aiming to build a robust innovation ecosystem in HEIs.
As of September 2024, there were 14,269 IICs (707 Universities, 9,533 Colleges and 2,901
Standalone Institutions) with 91,552 faculty members associated, 2,849 Incubation centres and
4,969 start-ups/ventures established/supported.
Map 3.6 Institution’s Innovation Councils across states/UTs (September, 2024)
Source: Institution Innovation Councils Website 33Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Map 3.6 represents the distribution of IICs across states and UTs. States like Maharashtra, Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh have the highest number of IICs, while Lakshadweep, Ladakh,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, and Manipur have the
lowest number of IICs. Ten states account for 83.3% of the total 14,269 IICs in India. Given the
many positive outcomes of investing in innovation, there is a need for the other states to focus on
Innovation in a much greater measure.
4. FUNDING & FINANCING
Higher Education enables the beneficiaries to obtain sufficient knowledge and skill so as to
function as a productive member of society. Hence, investments in higher education are crucial,
both nationally and internationally. This section discusses the international scenario of financing
followed by investments at the national level.
Despite having one of the largest education budgets among emerging economies, India faces challenges
in adequately financing HEIs. The combined expenditure by the Centre and States on university and
higher education (as a percentage of GDP) is 0.62% and on technical education is 0.95%. (Analysis of
Budgeted Expenditure on Education 2018-19 to 2020-21, 2022). Overall expenditure on education
is higher at 4.64%, but still falls short of the 6% target set by NEP 2020. Addressing this financing gap
is crucial for improving the quality and accessibility of higher education.
4.1 India’s expenditure on Higher Education in comparison with other
countries
Figure 3.10: Government Expenditure on Tertiary Education as % of GDP (2021)
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Note: The chart represents the top countries by GDP. Russian Federation is not included due to the unavailability of data.
India was at par with all leading nations of the world by investing 1.57% of its Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) on tertiary education in 2021. It outperformed most European nations, slightly trailing the USA
and the UK. 34Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Figure 3.11 Government Budget on Tertiary Education (2021)
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Note: The chart represents the top countries by GDP. Russian Federation, China, and Japan are not included due to the
unavailability of data.
With a budget of around US$362 billion, the USA leads global spending on tertiary education.
India has the fourth-largest tertiary education budget, comparable to the UK and surpassing many
other developed countries. India’s spending is more than that of Canada and Italy put together,
demonstrating significant investment in the sector.
Figure 3.12 Government Expenditure on Tertiary Education per capita (2021)
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, and The World Bank
Note: The chart represents the top countries by GDP. Russian Federation, China, and Japan are not included due to the
unavailability of data.
While India performs well internationally in terms of overall tertiary education budget, its per
capita government expenditure on tertiary education is only about US$30, which is lower than
most developed and emerging countries. The per capita expenditure of the USA is over 35 times
that of India, while Brazil, a peer BRICS nation, is 2.6 times that of India. Hence, there is a need
to look at greater investments in higher education to ensure access to quality education in the
world’s most populous country. 35Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
5. GOVERNANCE
It is imperative that accountability and autonomy go hand-in-hand. Thus, institutions like the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and mechanisms like the National Institutional
Ranking Framework (NIRF) have been established to ensure quality of educational governance in
thereby enabling Indian HEIs.
The NEP 2020 prioritizes improving the quality of educational outcomes at all levels through
effective governance. The quality of HEIs and student learning are crucial focus areas, especially
in light of the annual global university rankings. Efforts to create world-class universities in India,
such as the establishment of 20 Institutions of Eminence (10 public and 10 private), aim to secure
top positions for Indian universities in global rankings. Since 2015, India has been conducting its
own national rankings through the NIRF, with results published annually from 2016. The NEP 2020
also aims to reform accreditation processes by emphasizing the need for robust external quality
assurance mechanisms and effective internal quality assurance systems (Varghese, 2022).
5.1 NAAC Accreditation
NAAC was established in 1994 as an autonomous institution under the UGC, in response to the
recommendations of the National Policy on Education (NPE, 1986) and the Programme of Action
(PoA, 1992). NAAC aims to make quality assurance centrestage in HEIs. It has established seven
criteria for its assessment procedures, tailored to three types of HEIs: Universities, Autonomous
Colleges, and Affiliated/Constituent Colleges. These criteria include:
i. Curricular Aspects
ii. Teaching-Learning & Evaluation
iii. Research, Innovations & Extension
iv. Infrastructure & Learning Resources
v. Student Support & Progression
vi. Governance
vii. Leadership & Management
viii. Institutional Values & Best Practices
Figure 3.13 NAAC Accreditation of Universities
Source: NAAC, AISHE 10-11, 16-17, 21-22 36Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Map 3.7 Percentage of Accredited Universities across states/UTs (2022)
Source: NAAC Accreditation Report, May 2023
Note: In the UTs of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, Ladakh and Lakshadweep, there is
no University, hence they are left blank on the map.
After almost 35 years of the introduction of the NAAC accreditation system, less than 39% of
universities nationwide have been accredited. While this is a function of a rapid rise in the number
of HEIs, it is also indicative of the need to prioritise governance at the HEI level. Tamil Nadu leads
with 76% of its universities accredited, followed by Delhi and Chandigarh. In contrast, Meghalaya
and Manipur have the lowest accredited universities (below 20%).
5.2 NIRF Rankings
NIRF was launched on 29
th
September 2015 by the Department of Higher Education and provides a
standardized methodology to rank HEIs across India. It evaluates institutions based on parameters
including:
i. Teaching
ii. Learning, and Resources
iii. Research and Professional Practice 37Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
iv. Graduation Outcomes
v. Outreach and Inclusivity
vi. Perception
NIRF ranks institutions across multiple categories, including Overall, Universities, Colleges, Research
Institutions, and specialized fields such as Engineering, Management, Pharmacy, Medical, Dental,
Law, Architecture, Agriculture, and Allied Sectors. In recent years, it has also included rankings for
Innovation, Open Universities, Skill Universities, and State Public Universities.
Map 3.8 State-wise distribution of the Top 100 universities across India (Universities category)
Source: NIRF India Rankings Report, 2024
Note: Only those states that have Universities among the top 100 as per NIRF rankings are represented
Map 3.8 represents the distribution of Top 100 Universities ranked in the Universities’ category of
the NIRF rankings 2024. The data reveals a concentration of highly ranked universities in specific
states such as Tamil Nadu (22% of the top 100 universities), Karnataka (11%), Maharashtra (10%)
and Uttar Pradesh (9%). Delhi and Punjab, each have 7% of the top-ranked universities in India. 38Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state in India ranks among the Top 5 states, thereby indicating
potential for growth in quality HEIs. Assam and Mizoram are the only two north-eastern states in
the rankings, with 2% and 1% of the top universities respectively. Several states and UTs, including
Chandigarh, Puducherry, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand and Gujarat, contribute minimally to the
top-ranking institutions. This distribution highlights the need for more focused development of
high-quality HEIs across all states and UTs.
CONCLUSION
Higher education in India plays a crucial role in driving economic growth and fostering research
and innovation. It equips individuals with advanced skills and knowledge, essential for enhancing
workforce productivity and innovation. By promoting knowledge creation, HEIs serve as hubs
for technological advancement, contributing to new ideas and incubating start-ups that fuel the
economy. Furthermore, a skilled and educated workforce attracts foreign investment, boosting
employment generation and increasing tax revenues. Higher education also promotes social
mobility, providing opportunities for individuals from diverse socio-economic backgrounds to
improve their economic status, thereby reducing inequality. Despite challenges such as access
and quality, the potential of higher education to drive sustainable economic growth and advance
knowledge creation remains significant; making it a cornerstone of India’s development strategy. 39Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
CHAPTER-IV
STATE PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES:
OVERVIEW & DECADAL TRANSFORMATION
1. GROWTH OF STATE PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
India has a large number of State Public Universities (SPUs). The AISHE Report 2021-22 highlights
that they account for 81% of the total student enrolment among Indian HEIs. Hence, they have a
crucial role to play in fostering local talent and driving regional development, which are essential
for India’s overall growth.
The nationwide growth and expansion of SPUs has been driven by initiatives aimed at increasing
access to affordable higher education, particularly in remote and underserved regions. This has been
essential in meeting the rising demand for higher education and addressing regional imbalances
in educational access. These institutions have been largely successful in enhancing access in the
hinterland. This is evident in their significant student enrolment figures, which have been analysed
in detail throughout this chapter.
The growth of SPUs can be quantified through three key metrics:
i. Increasing number of SPUs across different states,
ii. Diversity of SPUs, and
iii. Density of SPUs relative to each state’s population and geographical area.
While this expansion has undoubtedly improved access to higher education, there is an urgent
need for maintaining a balance between access and quality.
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 40Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1.1 Distribution of SPUs across states
Map 4.1 State-wise numbers of SPUs
Source: University Grants Commission, January 2025
Note: In the States and UTs of Mizoram, Nagaland, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and
Nagar Haveli, there are no SPUs.
As per latest data on the UGC website in January, 2025, India has 495 SPUs with Karnataka leading
at 43, followed by West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh with 38 each. Over the last 14 years, the growth
of SPUs stands at over 50%. 41Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1.2 Institutional Diversity within SPUs
SPUs encompass a variety of affiliated institutions. According to AISHE Reports, Colleges are
institutions established or maintained by or admitted to the privileges of the University and can
be broadly divided into:
i. University/Constituent College: These are maintained directly by the University.
ii. Affiliated College: These institutions are granted privileges by the University.
iii. Off-Campus Centre/ PG Centre: University-operated centres that are established outside
the main campus.
iv. Recognised Centre: These are institutions affiliated with the university for degree-awarding
purposes.
Table 4.1: Number of different types of institutions associated with SPUs (2021-22)
State/UT
Affiliated
College
Constituent
/ University
College
PG Center /
Off-Campus
Center
Recogn-
ized
Center
TOTAL
Average No.
of Affiliated
Colleges per
SPU
Andhra Pradesh2,542 58 7 2,607 106
Assam 537 6 1 544 36
Bihar 811 273 28 1,112 48
Chandigarh 26    26 26
Chhattisgarh876 41 1 4 922 63
Dadra and
Nagar Haveli
and Daman and
Diu
19   1 20
Delhi 98 12 2 112 11
Goa 61 1 2 8 72 61
Gujarat 2,314 80 25 41 2,460 89
Haryana 1,074 15 1 1,090 54
Himachal
Pradesh
341 8 1 7 357 49
Jammu and
Kashmir
317 22 10 1 350 35 42Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Jharkhand 284 82   366 26
Karnataka 4,350 78 31 54 4,513 132
Kerala 1,394 66 6 63 1,529 100
Ladakh 5 1 2 8 5
Madhya
Pradesh
2,672 37 911 3,620 116
Maharashtra4,604 82 2 127 4,815 200
Meghalaya 1   3 4
Nagaland    2 2
Odisha 1,273 26 1 1 1,301 67
Punjab 995 49 17 1,061 83
Rajasthan 3,887 47 78 4,012 150
Sikkim 3    3 3
Tamil Nadu 2,740 86 5 1 2,832 130
Telangana 2,042 40 5 2,087 136
Tripura 1    1 1
Uttar Pradesh8,332 23 45 8,400 260
Uttarakhand 401 16 2 3 422 40
West Bengal1,467 44 1 16 1,528 42
GRAND
TOTAL
43,467 1,193 118 1,39846,176
Source: AISHE 21-22
Note: Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Meghalaya, and Nagaland have associated institutions but no SPUs. Manipur
has 3 SPUs but no associated institutions. Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, Puducherry, and
Mizoram have no SPUs and no institutions associated with SPUs.
State/UT
Affiliated
College
Constituent
/ University
College
PG Center /
Off-Campus
Center
Recogn-
ized
Center
TOTAL
Average No.
of Affiliated
Colleges per
SPU 43Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Of the 46,176 institutions associated with SPUs, 43,467 are affiliated colleges, thereby highlighting
the predominance of the Affiliated College Model in the Indian higher education system.
Additionally, there are 1,193 constituent or university colleges, 118 PG centres/off-campus
centres and 1,398 recognized centres, reflecting a diverse range of specialized and supportive
HEIs.
1.3 SPU Density across states/UTs
Map 4.2 SPU Density across states
Source: AISHE 2021-22
Note: In the States and UTs of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Puducherry,
Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli, there are no SPUs. Hence SPU density is not presented and they are left blank on
the map. 44Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
SPU density is defined as the number of SPUs per lakh eligible population (aged 18-23), and varies
significantly across states. As depicted in Map 4.2, Ladakh has the highest SPU density at 2.6,
followed by Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Uttarakhand. Due to their large populations,
Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra record the lowest densities
despite having a higher absolute number of SPUs. Hence, states with a lower population tend to
have a higher density of SPUs.
2. ACCESS & INCLUSION
Ensuring equitable access and fostering inclusion within SPUs is paramount for democratizing higher
education opportunities across all societal strata. SPUs serve a significant proportion of students
from rural, economically disadvantaged, and socially marginalized backgrounds, necessitating the
implementation of inclusive policies to mitigate entry barriers for these underrepresented groups.
Central and State Governments have introduced several measures like fee waivers, scholarships
and reservation policies to promote greater participation from socially and economically
disadvantaged groups (SEDGs) This section evaluates access and inclusion in SPUs based on the
following 5 parameters:
i. Student enrolment at different levels
ii. Comparison with other types of HEIs
iii. Gender
iv. SEDGs
v. Divyangjan (Persons with Disabilities - PwD)
2.1 Level-wise Student Enrolment in SPUs
Table 4.2: Level-Wise Student Enrolment In SPUs (in lakhs)
2011-12 2016-17 2021-22
Ph.D.0.420.580.77
M. Phil. 0.250.320.07
Post Graduate 26.2730.1335.01
Under Graduate 202.43 246.31277.35
PG Diploma 1.191.131.03
Diploma 2.894.976.93
Certificate 0.520.760.47
Integrated 0.431.043.19
TOTAL234.40 285.24324.82
Source: AISHE 11-12, 16-17 & 21-22 45Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Student enrolment data from SPUs in 2021-22 reveals a significant increase to over 3.24 crore
students, up from 2.34 crores in 2011-12. Undergraduate programmes consistently outnumber
other categories, which shows a trend of students preferring employment to postgraduate
studies. Postgraduate enrolments demonstrated a steady growth of 15% from 2011-12 to 2016-
17, followed by a marginally higher rate of 16% from 2016-17 to 2021-22, suggesting sustained
interest in advanced studies.
Figure 4.1 Level-wise Student Enrolment in SPUs
Source: AISHE 11-12, 16-17, 21-22
Note: The ‘Others’ category includes Ph.D., M.Phil., Certificate and Integrated level students, they have been clubbed for
representation purposes.
Undergraduate enrolments exhibited a robust growth rate of 22% between 2011-12 and 2016-17,
but this pace decelerated to 13% in the following five years (2016-17 to 2021-22). This slowdown
may be attributed to increasing access to alternate career paths, vocational training opportunities,
and evolving employment landscapes.
Postgraduate Diploma programmes faced a consistent decline throughout the decade, with a 5%
fall in enrolments between 2011-12 and 2016-17, followed by a steeper 9% drop from 2016-17 to
2021-22. This trend may signal waning interest due to limited industry demand or perceptions of
diminished competitive edge compared to full-fledged postgraduate degrees.
Diploma programmes demonstrated the most dynamic enrolment trends, with a 72% surge from
2011-12 to 2016-17, reflecting strong demand for technical or skill-based education after Class XII.
However, growth moderated to 39% in the subsequent five-year period, potentially signalling the
emergence of alternative training and certification pathways outside the formal higher education
system.
PhD enrolments witnessed a 38% growth between 2011-12 and 2016-17, and a 33% growth
between 2016-17 to 2021-22. While the trend of growth is promising, a deceleration in growth
rate may indicate a declining interest in pursuing doctoral research as a career option. 46Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2.2 Student Enrolment in SPUs vis-à-vis other types of Higher Education
Institutions
An examination of student enrolment across various HEIs from 2011-12 to 2021-22 reveals
distinct growth patterns, with State Public and Private Universities showing notable trends. State
Public Universities (Teaching departments and Constituent Units/Off-campus Centres) maintain
the largest share of enrolments, growing from 24.5 lakhs in 2011-12 to nearly 29.8 lakhs in 2021-
22, marking a decadal increase of 21.8%. However, the growth rate was gradual at 7.9% from
2016-17 to 2021-22. State Private Universities (Teaching departments and Constituent Units/
Off-campus Centres) experienced the most significant growth, with enrolments soaring from 2.7
lakhs in 2011-12 to 16.2 lakhs in 2021-22 — an astonishing 497% increase. This rapid expansion
particularly the 110.3% rise between 2016-17 and 2021-22 reflects the growing prominence of
private institutions in the higher education landscape. Central Universities (Teaching departments
and Constituent Units/Off-campus Centres) saw a moderate growth of 26.4% over the decade,
rising from 5.55 lakhs in 2011-12 to 7.01 lakhs in 2021-22. However, a 2.5% decline from 2016-17
to 2021-22 suggests potential shifts in student preferences or institutional capacity constraints.
Private Deemed Universities have shown consistent growth with enrolments rising by 54.5% over
the decade, from 5.52 lakhs in 2011-12 to 8.53 lakhs in 2021-22. The 39.3% growth from 2016-17
to 2021-22 indicates steady expansion. The ‘Others’ category, encompassing various institutional
types, experienced an increase of 106.1% in enrolments over the decade, with a 57.7% rise from
2016-17 to 2021-22 signalling a shift towards these types of institutions.
This comparative analysis underscores the dynamic nature of India’s higher education landscape,
with State Public Universities maintaining dominance in absolute enrolment figures, while State
Private Universities exhibiting the most rapid growth trajectory.
2.3. Gender-based Enrolment and Gender Parity Trends in SPUs
Figure 4.2 Enrolment in SPUs based on gender
Source: AISHE 11-12, 16-17, 21-22 47Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Recent data indicates progress towards gender parity in SPU enrolment, with 51.79% male and
48.21% female enrolment nationally. However, significant inter-state variations persist. States such
as Kerala, Telangana, Haryana, West Bengal, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu demonstrate higher female
enrolment rates, while substantial gender disparities favouring male enrolment are evident in
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh.
Map 4.3 Gender Parity Index in SPUs (2021-22)
Source: AISHE 21-22
Note: Constituent Colleges of SPUs are not included.
The Gender Parity Index (GPI) in SPUs varies significantly across states, reflecting disparities in
gender balance across the higher education landscape. The national GPI for SPUs stands at 0.93.
As indicated in Map 4.3, Sikkim leads with a GPI of 1.78, indicating a higher proportion of female
students in the SPUs. Goa and Haryana follow closely with GPIs of 1.75 and 1.33 respectively,
surpassing the national average. Among UTs, Lakshadweep reports an exceptionally high GPI at
5.28, followed by Ladakh (2.21) and Jammu and Kashmir (1.41).
Uttar Pradesh (0.57), Bihar (0.55) and Delhi (0.49) show the lowest GPI values, indicating a gender
imbalance and a need for targeted interventions to improve gender parity in these states/UT.
Notably, the GPI in SPUs, though lower than the national average of GPI across HEIs, has shown a 48Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
31% improvement over the past decade, thereby indicating a notable increase in female enrolment
in the hinterland.
2.4 Student Enrolment From SEDGs in SPUs:
Table 4.3: Student Enrolment from SEDGs in SPUs (in lakhs)
Years SC ST OBC Muslim
Other
Minorities
EWS
2011-201229.11 9.26 72.71 10.34 4.29 -
2016-201741.55 13.25 103.38 15.15 5.85 -
2021-202251.34 19.15 131.51 16.60 6.57 4.54
Source: AISHE 11-12, 16-17, 21-22
The enrolment of students from SEDGs in SPUs has seen notable growth over the past decade.
Significant increase has been observed among Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and
Other Backward Classes (OBCs), reflecting broader efforts towards providing access to higher
education. From 2011 to 2022, OBC enrolment has shown a substantial 80.9% increase, while SC
enrolment has grown by 76.3%. In 2011-12, 15% of the eligible SC students (aged 18-23 years) were
enrolled in HEIs across India which increased to nearly 26% by 2021-22. Similarly, ST enrolment
also doubled, rising by 106.8%, with the percentage of eligible ST students in higher education
increasing from 11 to 21% over the decade. Enrolment among Muslims and Other Minorities has
experienced an increase, growing by 60.6% and 53.2% respectively over the decade. While the
growth is positive, it is slower compared to SC, ST, and OBC categories.
The introduction of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category in 2021 marks a new shift
in the representation of SEDGs in higher education. This trend underscores the growing focus on
inclusivity in SPUs, particularly for underrepresented social groups. However, the varying rates of
growth across different SEDGs suggest that further efforts are needed to ensure equitable access
to higher education for all.
2.5 PWD Student Enrolment in SPUs
Figure 4.3 PWD Student Enrolments in SPUs
Source: AISHE 11-12, 16-17, 21-22 49Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
The enrolment of students in the PwD category in SPUs has shown steady growth over the
past decade. In 2011-12, there were 52,894 students enrolled which slightly increased to 53,921
by 2016-17, reflecting a marginal growth of nearly 2%. By 2021-22, this figure reached 56,379,
representing a 4.6% increase from 2016-17 and a 6.6% rise from 2011-12. While the growth has
been modest, it indicates a gradual improvement in the inclusion of students with disabilities in
HEIs.
3. QUALITY
Ensuring the quality of higher education provided by SPUs is pivotal for enhancing the value
of degrees and the employability of graduates. While SPUs play a crucial role in democratizing
access to higher education, their quality often varies due to insufficient funding, administrative
inefficiencies, and inadequate faculty training. A robust framework is necessary to standardize and
elevate the quality of education across SPUs, ensuring graduates are competitive in the global job
market. This section analyses quality of SPUs based on data available on two available indicators:
i. Faculty composition
ii. Student Residential facilities
3.1 Faculty Composition across SPUs
Figure 4.4 Teachers across academic positions in SPUs
Source: AISHE 11-12, 16-17, 21-22
As depicted in Figure 4.4, Lecturers and Assistant Professors form the largest proportion of teaching
staff in SPUs, accounting for 69.5% of all faculty, while visiting teachers and Demonstrators/Tutors
represent just 0.8% and 4.4% respectively. Over the past decade, the proportion of Readers and
Associate Professors has declined from 14.8% in 2011-12 to 10% in 2021-22, while the number
of Professors has marginally increased. As depicted in Figure 4.5, gender disparities are evident in
faculty positions, with male staff significantly outnumbering females, especially in higher academic 50Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
ranks, except in the Demonstrator/Tutor category. This imbalance highlights the need for concerted
efforts to promote gender diversity, particularly in senior academic positions.
Figure 4.5 Teachers across academic positions in SPUs based on gender (2021-22)
Source: AISHE 21-22
3.2 Residential Accommodation in SPUs
Figure 4.6 Number of Hostels in SPUs
Source: AISHE 11-12, 16-17, 21-22
The number of student hostels in SPUs has increased steadily over the past decade, with boys
hostels growing by 54.4% and girls hostels by 64.4%. The significant growth in girls hostels reflects
efforts to provide safe and adequate residential facilities for female students, a key factor in 51Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
promoting gender equity in higher education. However, the growth in ‘other’ hostel categories
has stagnated, indicating a potential need for specialized accommodations to address the evolving
needs of students, particularly as overall enrolment continues to rise.
4. FUNDING & FINANCING
The 14
th
Finance Commission (2015-2020) recommended higher share of tax devolution to the
states from 32% to 42%. This was the biggest increase in tax devolution and provided the states
larger fiscal space to spend on social sectors. However, this has not translated into increase in
spending on education across states. There has also been a decline in the growth of expenditure
in higher education, and fall in share of education spending by the states as percentage of GSDP
between 2005-06 and 2019-20.
There has also been a fall in average growth rates in higher education expenditure in states
during 2015-20, i.e., the 14
th
Finance Commission cycle, with the median value coming down
to 6.6% in 2015-20 compared to 10% in 2005-10 and 2010-15. There are states with negative
growth rates in spending on higher education. Mean per youth expenditure on higher education
rose from `2,174 to `4,921 between 2005-06 and 2019-20. However, within this increase, the
divergence between states has risen significantly. Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,
and Telangana continue to be the top spenders on per youth spending on higher education, with
states like Rajasthan, Punjab and Chhattisgarh lagging. (Bose et al, 2022)
4.1 State-wise expenditure on Education as percentage of GSDP (2020-21)
Figure 4.7 State-wise expenditure on Education as percentage of GSDP (2020-21)
Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education 2018-19 to 2020-21,
Ministry of Education, Government of India 52Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Among all states and UTs, Jammu & Kashmir leads with the highest education expenditure as a
percentage of GDP at 8.11%, followed by Manipur (7.25%), Meghalaya (6.64%), and Tripura (6.19%).
In contrast, Delhi (1.67%), Telangana (2%), and Karnataka (2.01%) allocate significantly less.
4.2 Higher Education budgets of StatesTable 4.4: Analysis of Expenditure by States/UTs on Higher Education (2020-21)
States/UTs
Higher
Education
Budget (in
`crores)
(A)
Higher Education
Budget
as % of Total
Expenditure on
Education & Training
by Education & other
Departments
(B)
Total Expenditure
on Education
& Training by
Education & other
Departments as %
of GSDP
(C)
Higher
Education
budget
as % of GSDP
(D)
Andaman and
Nicobar Islands
104 14.12 N.A. N.A.
Andhra Pradesh 3,490 13.66 2.52 0.34
Arunachal Pradesh 155 8.93 5.85 0.52
Assam 3,488 18.80 4.87 0.92
Bihar 9,666 40.70 3.84 1.56
Chandigarh 318 25.89 2.95 0.76
Chhattisgarh 1,377 7.99 4.92 0.39
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
and Daman
and Diu
130 33.55 N.A. N.A.
Delhi 2,077 15.84 1.67 0.26
Goa 874 27.59 4.04 1.12
Gujarat 3,792 10.60 2.16 0.23
Haryana 3,682 17.75 2.73 0.49
Himachal Pradesh 874 10.39 5.37 0.56
Jammu & Kashmir 2,679 18.85 8.11 1.53
Jharkhand 2,381 17.25 4.35 0.75
Karnataka 5,129 14.72 2.01 0.30
Kerala 4,225 15.29 3.46 0.53
Ladakh 663 51.07 N.A. N.A.
Lakshadweep 3 2.38 N.A. N.A.
Madhya Pradesh 3,389 9.92 3.50 0.35
Maharashtra 11,421 12.53 3.36 0.42
Manipur 496 20.07 7.25 1.45
Meghalaya 446 20.10 6.64 1.33
Mizoram 343 22.02 5.34 1.18 53Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Nagaland 167 11.02 5.12 0.56
Odisha 2,614 11.63 4.14 0.48
Puducherry 277 25.01 2.97 0.74
Punjab 1,283 8.50 2.79 0.24
Rajasthan 2,307 5.99 3.80 0.23
Sikkim 142 10.88 4.00 0.44
Tamil Nadu 7,237 13.37 2.85 0.38
Telangana 1,751 9.01 2.00 0.18
Tripura 194 5.31 6.19 0.33
Uttarakhand 872 8.77 4.37 0.38
Uttar Pradesh 4,775 5.20 5.35 0.28
West Bengal 5,534 12.81 3.32 0.43
Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education 2018-19 to 2020-21, Ministry of Education,
Government of India
Note: Data is unavailable for certain UTs, hence those columns are left blank.
Column A is the Higher Education Budget of States/UTs for 2020-21, calculated by adding the Budgeted Expenditure (Revenue
Account, Capital Account, and Loans and Advances Account) across university and higher education, adult education, technical
education, general education, and language education.
Maharashtra leads in higher education funding with a budget of `11,421 crore, followed by
Bihar (`9,666 crore) and Tamil Nadu (`7,237 crore). States like Sikkim (`142 crore), Arunachal
Pradesh (`155 crore), and Nagaland (`167 crore) have the lowest higher education budgets. When
considering higher education expenditure as a percentage of Gross State Domestic Product
(GSDP), Bihar ranks highest at 1.56%, followed by J&K at 1.53% and Manipur at 1.45%. Telangana
has the lowest percentage at 0.18%, while Gujarat and Rajasthan allocate 0.23% each.
5. GOVERNANCE
Governance is the unseen glue that enables institutions to deliver on key priorities. To implement effective
policies within institutions and make them the best versions of themselves, periodic evaluations provide the
right impetus for high standards of governance. This can be tangibly measured through achieving high ranks
on various national and international platforms. India has been ahead of the curve in this regard. The National
Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) was introduced in 2016 to identify high quality institutions based on
parameters and criteria relevant to the Indian context. In its 2024 report, NIRF introduced a new category
for ranking: State Public Universities (SPUs). Until then, SPUs were ranked along with other HEIs, though they
operate in a very different context. The introduction of this new category enabled a realistic comparison
among SPUs across states.
In Map 4.4, 37 State Public Universities appeared in the top 100 institutions (university category) as per
NIRF rankings in 2016, while 38 appeared in the top 100 institutions (university category) in 2024. Southern
states have been consistent in ensuring quality of education in SPUs. Tamil Nadu has the highest share of 8
and 9 SPUs in 2016 and 2024 respectively. SPUs in the UTs of Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir have maintained 54Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
their ranks in the top 100. Notable decadal progress can be observed in the SPUs of Kerala, Karnataka and
Uttar Pradesh. The share of SPUs from Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, and West Bengal has dropped over the
decade, while Haryana and Rajasthan has reduced to 0.
5.1 Number of SPUs in the top 100 universities category as per NIRF, 2016 &
2024 (Universities Category)
Map 4.4 Number of SPUs in the top 100 universities across India (2016 & 2024) (Universities category)
Source: NIRF India Rankings Report, 2016 & 2024
Note: This map displays the difference in the number of SPUs among the Top 100 universities across states between
2016 and 2024. The number in the bracket denotes the number of SPUs among the Top 100 in the State in 2016.
The number outside indicates the number in 2024. Only those states are represented which have the NIRF ranked SPUs among
the top 100 universities.
55Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
5.2 Number of top SPUs in each state as per NIRF Rankings 2024 (SPU
Category)
Table 4.5 lists the first set of Top 50 SPUs ranked in the NIRF 2024 (SPU category). Map 4.5
provides state-wise distribution. Throughout this report, these have been referred to as Leading
SPUs.
Table 4.5: List of Top 50 SPUs in NIRF 2024
Sr.
No.
NameCity State Rank
1 Anna University Chennai Tamil Nadu 1
2 Jadavpur University Kolkata West Bengal 2
3 Savitribai Phule Pune UniversityPune Maharashtra 3
4 University of Calcutta Kolkata West Bengal 4
5 Panjab University Chandigarh Chandigarh 5
6 Osmania University Hyderabad Telangana 6
7 Andhra University Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh7
8 Bharathiar University Coimbatore Tamil Nadu 8
9 Kerala University Thiruvananthapuram Kerala 9
10
Cochin University of Science
and Technology
Cochin Kerala 10
11 Mahatma Gandhi University Kottayam Kerala 11
12 University of Madras Chennai Tamil Nadu 12
13 Gauhati University Guwahati Assam 13
14 University of Kashmir Srinagar
Jammu and
Kashmir
14
15 Delhi Technological UniversityNew Delhi Delhi 15
16 Bharathidasan University Tiruchirappalli Tamil Nadu 16
17 Alagappa University Karaikudi Tamil Nadu 17
18 University of Mumbai Mumbai Maharashtra 18
19 University of Mysore Mysuru Karnataka 19
20 Acharya Nagarjuna University Guntur Andhra Pradesh20
21
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University
New Delhi Delhi 21
22
Visvesvaraya Technological
University
Belgaum Karnataka 22
23 University of Jammu Jammu
Jammu and
Kashmir
23
24 Bangalore University Bangalore Karnataka 24
25 Periyar University Salem Tamil Nadu 25
26 Madurai Kamaraj University Madurai Tamil Nadu 26
27King George’s Medical UniversityLucknow Uttar Pradesh27 56Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
28 Dibrugarh University Dibrugarh Assam 28
29 Gujarat University Ahmedabad Gujarat 29
30
Punjab Agricultural University
Ludhiana Punjab 30
31 Annamalai University Annamalainagar Tamil Nadu 31
32 University of Lucknow Lucknow Uttar Pradesh32
33COEP Technological University Pune Maharashtra 33
34
Netaji Subhas University of
Technology (NSUT)
South West Delhi 34
35 Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak Haryana 35
36 University of Burdwan Bardhaman West Bengal 36
37
Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University
Tirunelveli Tamil Nadu 37
38
G.B. Pant Universtiy of
Agriculture and Technology,
Pantnagar
Pantnagar Uttarakhand 38
39 Sri Venkateswara University Tirupati Andhra Pradesh39
40
Madan Mohan Malaviya
University of Technology
Gorakhpur Uttar Pradesh 40
41 Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra Haryana 41
42 Utkal University Bhubaneswar Odisha 42
43 Calicut University Malappuram Kerala 43
44
University of Agricultural
Sciences
Bangalore Karnataka 44
45
Indraprastha Institute of
Information Technology
New Delhi Delhi 45
46
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University
Aurangabad Maharashtra 46
47
Guru Jambheshwar University of
Science and Technology
Hisar Haryana 47
48
Chaudhary Charan Singh
Haryana Agricultural University
Hisar Haryana 48
49
Tamil Nadu Agricultural
University
Coimbatore Tamil Nadu 49
50 Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya Indore Madhya Pradesh 50 57Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Map 4.5 Number of top 50 SPUs in India as per NIRF (SPU Category)
Source: NIRF India Rankings Report, 2024
Note: Only those states are represented which have the top-ranked SPUs as per NIRF.
5.3 Criteria for NIRF Rankings 2024
Table 4.6 lists the broad common criteria for NIRF Rankings 2024 for the ‘Universities’ and ‘SPU’
categories. as discussed in sections 5.1 and 5.2 respectively. 58Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Table 4.6 Criteria for NIRF Rankings 2024
S. No.ParametersMarks
1.
Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR)
Ranking weight: 0.30
100
Student Strength including Doctoral Students(SS): 20 marks
Faculty-student ratio with emphasis on permanent faculty (FSR): 25 marks
Combined metric for Faculty with PhD (or equivalent) and Experience (FQE):
20 marks
Financial Resources and their Utilization (FRU): 20 marks
Online Education: Online Completion of Syllabus & Exams and Swayam (OE):
10 marks
Combined metric for Multiple Entry/Exit, Indian Knowledge System and
Regional languages (MIR): 5 marks
2.
Research and Professional Practice (RP)
Ranking weight: 0.30
100
Combined metric for Publications (PU): 30 marks
Combined metric for Quality of Publications (QP): 30 marks
IPR and Patents: Published and Granted (IPR): 15 marks
Footprint of Projects and Professional Practice (FPPP): 15 marks
Combined metric for Publications & Citations in SDG’s (PSDGs): 10 marks
3.
Graduation Outcomes (GO)
Ranking weight: 0.20
100
Metric for University Examinations(GUE): 60 marks
Metric for Number of Ph.D. Students Graduated (GPHD): 40 marks
4.
Outreach and Inclusivity (OI)
Ranking weight: 0.10
100
Percentage of Students from Other States/Countries (Region Diversity RD):
30 marks
Percentage of Women (Women Diversity WD): 30 marks
Economically and Socially Challenged Students (ESCS):
20 marks
Facilities for Physically Challenged Students (PCS): 20 marks
5.
Perception (PR)
Ranking weight: 0.10
100
Peer Perception: Academic Peers and Employers/NAAC Accreditation (PR):
100 marks 59Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Conclusion
As highlighted in the Report of the Education Commission (1968), there is a close relationship
not only between education and individual growth, but also national development as a whole.
Quality higher education has shaped world powers, thus making it important for India to focus on
harnessing the potential of this sector through strong HEIs, especially SPUs that account for over
80% of all students in Indian higher education. However, there are several challenges faced by SPUs
while expanding access to quality education. The subsequent chapters delve into greater details on
the challenges and provide detailed recommendations that have been designed based on extensive
multi-stakeholder consultations. 60Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
CHAPTER-V
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS
As part of the study, a series of consultations were undertaken with Central and State Government
Officers, Heads of State Higher Education Councils, and Vice Chancellors and Senior Academicians
from State Public Universities. The sectoral challenges and policy recommendations provided in
this report are substantively based on these consultations.
1. Pilot Consultation with State Government Officers and Vice Chancellors of
SPUs
The pilot consultations with select State Government Officers heading Higher Education
Departments and Vice Chancellors of SPUs were held on July 31 and August 2, 2023 under
the chairpersonship of Shri Rajib Sen, Senior Adviser (Education). The primary objective was
to understand the landscape of Higher Education in States and SPUs, and their challenges and
opportunities to achieve the targets envisioned in the NEP 2020. The four major themes that
emerged during the discussions were:
i. Financing: Institutional, Student and Infrastructure, and Accountability
ii. Governance: Administration, Capacity Building and Autonomy
iii. Faculty Recruitment
iv. Industry Collaboration, Internships and Apprenticeships
Based on the insights gained during the pilot consultations, two sets of detailed consultations were
held subsequently.
2. Consultation with Central and State Government Officers
The second set of consultations were held under the chairpersonship of Dr. Vinod Kumar Paul,
Member (Education), NITI Aayog, on September 15, 2023 at NITI Bhavan. Principal Secretaries
and Secretaries of Higher and Technical Education Departments of State and Union Territory
Governments and other senior officers from over 20 States and Union Territories, Joint Secretary
from the Department of Higher Education, Government of India, Secretary General of the
Association of Indian Universities (AIU), among many others participated in these consultations.
The discussions focused on the following nine thematic areas with respect to SPUs:
i. Improving Quality of Higher Education and Research
ii. Challenges of Expanding Higher Education
iii. Funding and Financing of SPUs and Future Focus Areas for RUSA (PM-USHA)
iv. Improving Governance and Autonomy 61Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
v. Recruitment and Capacity Building of Faculty and Administrators
vi. Skilling and Employability Enhancement for Students across Streams
vii. Digitalisation of Higher Education
viii. Promoting Internationalisation of Higher Education
ix. Academia-Industry Collaboration
3. Consultation with Vice-Chancellors of Leading and Aspirational SPUs and
Chairpersons of State Councils for Higher Education
The third set of consultations were held in the form of a National Conference at the Dr. Ambedkar
International Centre, New Delhi on November 2, 2023. Over 50 Vice Chancellors and Senior
Academicians from Leading and Aspirational SPUs from 20 States and Union Territories across
India and Chairpersons of several State Councils for Higher Education participated in the daylong
conference. Shri Suman Bery, Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog, Dr. Vijay Kumar Saraswat and Dr.
Vinod Kumar Paul, Members, NITI Aayog, Prof. M. Jagadeesh Kumar, Chairman, University Grants
Commission, and Prof. G.D. Sharma, President, AIU addressed the distinguished gathering during
the Inaugural Session. The daylong discussions focused on four thematic areas: Quality, Funding and
Financing, Governance, and Employability. 62Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
CHAPTER-VI
KEY CHALLENGES
The thematic challenges listed in this chapter are a collation of challenges faced by SPUs and
identified during the consultations held with State and Central Government Officers, Vice-
Chancellors and Senior Academicians from SPUs, and Heads of State Higher Education Councils.
1. Quality
A. Improving Quality of Research
1. Dearth of good quality Infrastructure: An overarching challenge facing institutions
across States is the lack of high-quality infrastructure. Insufficient research facilities,
laboratories, and equipment pose challenges to conducting experiments and gathering data
effectively. A key contributing factor identified is the constraint in funding. This shortfall
encompasses both physical and digital infrastructure, exacerbating the challenges faced by
SPUs.
2. Shortage of Faculty and Staff: SPUs are confronted with a shortage of personnel,
exacerbated by the non-finalization of Recruitment Rules, thereby posing a significant
challenge in maintaining the pupil teacher ratio. Additionally, there is an urgent need to
foster accountability for underperformance and establish incentives to motivate existing
staff to excel.
3. Structural Limitations: SPUs lack the necessary infrastructure and framework for
engaging effectively in research activities, highlighting a misalignment between their structure
and the requirements for research.
4. Insufficient Expenditure on R&D: Limited financing options result in inadequate
expenditure on research and development, negatively impacting infrastructure development
and the quality of research conducted in SPUs.
5. Dissonance in Faculty Recruitment and Roles: Faculty members are primarily
recruited for teaching roles rather than research responsibilities, leading to a deficiency in
research capacity within SPUs. Evaluation criteria for faculty members prioritize teaching
during appointments but heavily emphasize research in subsequent evaluations, causing
dissonance and stress among faculty members.
6. Low Enrolment in Advanced Degrees: There is a low enrolment of students at the
MTech and Ph.D. levels, presenting a significant challenge in fostering advanced research and
academic growth.
7. Need for Advanced Research Instruments: Universities need an expansion in their
array of modern and advanced research instruments. This includes both increasing the 63Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
quantity of these instruments and incorporating newer technologies to enhance the
research environment.
8. Lack of Faculty Expertise in Advanced Research: There is a lack of significant
expertise among faculty in advancing research to higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRL).
There is a critical need for a dedicated fund designated for scaling up projects from TRL 3
to 6 to facilitate the commercialization of research endeavours.
9. Limited Access to High-Quality Journals: Limited access to high-quality journals and
frequent changes to the UGC Journal list add layers of difficulty for researchers in accessing
consistent and reliable academic resources.
10. Deficiency of Expertise in Writing Research Proposals: A deficiency in faculty expertise
in writing research proposals leads to difficulties in obtaining approvals for government projects.
11. Need for change in Faculty Research Mindset: The prevailing mindset of faculty
members with respect to research, with many tending to prioritize teaching or publishing
papers over conducting substantial research, presents a challenge.
12. Delayed Disbursal of Sanctioned Grants: Delay in disbursing sanctioned research
project grants disrupts research continuity, affecting the progress of ongoing projects.
13. Absence of Provisions for Recurring Grants: Maintenance and operation of modern
research facilities pose challenges due to the absence of provisions for recurring grants,
hindering the sustainability of research activities.
14. Limited Collaboration: SPUs’ collaboration with premier institutes is often limited,
hindering progress in research projects due to resource and communication constraints.
15. Scarcity of Incentives: Researchers lack incentives such as funding, recognition, and
career advancement opportunities, affecting motivation and commitment to high-quality
research.
16. Inadequate Dissemination of Findings: Insufficient mechanisms for sharing research
findings restrict the impact and real-world application of research projects.
B. Improving Quality of Pedagogy and Curriculum
1. Courses, syllabus, curriculum not being industry-ready: In response to the dynamic
shifts in technology, industry demands, and societal changes, government colleges must
undertake a comprehensive reassessment and restructuring of their course offerings. This
entails updating curricula to reflect the latest knowledge, skills, and technologies relevant
to contemporary job markets, while also emphasizing critical thinking, creativity, and
adaptability. Moreover, integrating digital literacy and technology-based learning into course
content is essential to equip students with the necessary skills for the digital age. The lack
of these is a major challenge.
2. Absence of robust Framework and Policy Provisions for Multidisciplinary
Education and Research Universities (MERUs): The lack of frameworks and policy
guidelines for establishment of MERUs hampers Leading SPUs from transitioning to MERUs. 64Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
3. Insufficient Flexibility in Designing Innovative Curriculum and Pedagogy: Lack of
flexibility to high potential affiliated colleges to design innovative curriculum and pedagogical
methods in line with the needs of emerging and sunrise industries and social sectors is a
challenge.
4. Lack of Performance Systems to Measure Teaching Quality: There are limited
established metrics or performance systems in place to measure the quality of teachers
and teaching methods.
C. Digitalisation of Higher Education
1. Infrastructure Shortfalls for Digital Learning: The shortfall in infrastructure, especially
the absence of adequate conference rooms conducive to digital learning and engagement,
poses a significant challenge to the effective implementation of digital learning initiatives.
2. Scarcity of Capacity-Building Programmes in Digital Learning for Teachers:
Scarcity of capacity-building programmes aimed at enhancing teachers’ skills and proficiency
in online and digital learning methodologies is a critical concern.
D. Internationalisation of Higher Education
1. Need for revision of Selection Criteria for Internationalization: Nodal agencies
responsible for overseeing the internationalization of universities should establish clear
and inclusive selection criteria. These criteria should ensure that smaller high potential
institutions are also considered for international partnerships and collaborations, thereby
providing them with opportunities for global engagement.
2. Underfunding of Research: Research funding from the State Government remains
relatively low, with a significant portion of funds being allocated towards salaries. As a
result, research initiatives are underfunded, impacting the internationalization of higher
education. International students seek institutions with robust research programmes and
opportunities, emphasizing the necessity for increased investment in research to attract
and retain a diverse student body. Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts
towards research funding.
II. Funding and Financing
A. Government Funding
1. Limited Government Funding for CapEx and OpEx: SPUs face financial constraints
due to inadequate State Government grants covering only a fraction of operational expenses
and falling short even for salaries. This affects their capacity to deliver quality education
and infrastructure. Additionally, limited funding constraints faculty recruitment, innovative
programme implementation, and development of industry-relevant curricula.
2. Diminished Opportunities for External Research Grants: The diminished
opportunities for securing external research grants, particularly noticeable in recent years
with Central Government agencies granting a significantly limited number of research
projects, pose a challenge. The notable absence of specific R&D cells for SPUs compounds 65Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
the challenges faced by researchers. Research funding from central agencies is often directed
towards Institutes of National Importance and Central Universities, thereby neglecting
Leading SPUs.
3. Faulty Funding Mechanism: Performance-linked funding exacerbates disparities
between universities of varying quality.
4. Challenges in implementing Humanities and Social Science Programmes: Self-
financing universities offering humanities and social science programmes face challenges,
especially because students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds often choose
these disciplines. Augmenting state grants-in-aid is essential to ensure the smooth operation
of these programmes.
5. Administrative Delays in Fund Sanctioning: Administrative delays in sanctioning
funds for maintenance and campus construction hinder timely progress in these crucial
areas, affecting the overall functioning of the universities.
6. Lack of Structured Framework for Availing Bank Loans: The process of availing
loans from banks lacks a structured framework, highlighting the need for comprehensive
reforms to involve banks in streamlining the loan application and approval process.
7. High Education Costs in Rural Areas: Rural education costs are prohibitively high, and
a one-size-fits-all financing approach proves ineffective.
8. Need for diversity in Funding Mechanisms: Funding mechanisms lack responsiveness
to SPUs’ diverse needs and priorities, hindering their ability to address critical areas such as
infrastructure development, research initiatives, and faculty recruitment.
9. Absence of dedicated funding for Medical Universities: Medical universities lack
dedicated funding sources and support mechanisms, with no specific grant commission like
the UGC.
10. Non-existance of a dedicated Infrastructure Finance Agency for SPUs: There
is no infrastructure finance agency dedicated specifically to SPUs, like HEFA for Central
Universities and Institutions of National Importance.
11. Funding hindrance in Faculty Recruitment and Retention: Funding shortages hinder
faculty recruitment and promotions, affecting education and research quality. Allocation for
new positions is inadequate, leading to reluctance in filling critical positions at Associate
Professor and Professor levels. Highly qualified teachers prefer private colleges or overseas
opportunities for better incentives.
B. Diversification of Revenue Sources
1. Over-reliance on Traditional Revenue Streams: Reliance on traditional revenue
sources like admission fees, college affiliation fees, and state grants presents challenges
to SPUs amid changes in admission processes and educational landscapes, such as the
transition to centralised admissions and encouragement for autonomous colleges. 66Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
C. Fee Autonomy
1. Need for Autonomy to Raise Funds and Increase Fees: SPUs lack the autonomy
to raise funds and increase fees within reasonable limits to meet their expenditure
requirements and ensure financial sustainability.
D. Taxation and Utility Payments
1. Taxation Issues: Financial hurdles arise due to taxation on revenue of SPUs, including
CSR grants, and commercial rates for utilities. These impact their financial sustainability by
reducing disposable income and elevating operational costs.
III. Governance
A. Improving Governance and Autonomy
1. High Costs of Accreditation: Multiple colleges remain unaccredited due to the costs
associated with the accreditation process. There is a need for the NAAC to undertake a
comprehensive restructuring of their fees and costs for accreditation, with the aim of reducing
financial barriers and facilitating greater participation.
2. Inefficiencies in Affiliation Process: The affiliation process for colleges is plagued by
inefficiencies, leading to significant delays and challenges for private colleges. Sanctioning
new and emerging tech courses often encounters lengthy delays, impacting the timely
implementation of educational programmes. Additionally, the examination procedures
in private colleges are marred by inefficiencies. Furthermore, the lack of clarity in the
legislative framework for de-affiliation and degree-awarding institutions impedes efforts to
increase the GER, as outlined in the NEP.
3. Day-to-day Governance Issues: Administrative and bureaucratic hurdles related
to admissions and examinations, financial constraints on infrastructure augmentation,
compliance with state and central regulations, etc., pose ongoing governance challenges for
SPUs. The lack of robust governance structures has led to issues in administrative control,
resulting in inefficiencies and inconsistencies in these critical processes.
4. Governance Structure and Autonomy Issues: SPUs face a lack of administrative
autonomy, impacting decision-making and hindering innovation. Affiliated colleges struggle
to achieve true autonomy as administrative control often remains centralized with the
State Government, limiting their ability to adapt and thrive independently.
5. Need for Synergy between State Technical and Higher Education Departments:
In instances where the Departments of Technical Education and Higher Education are
segregated, which is commonplace across most states, fostering greater collaboration,
connectivity, and synergy becomes imperative. It is essential for these parallel departments
to engage in dialogue and coordinate efforts to work harmoniously, a facet that is often
lacking.
6. Need for Mentoring Support: There is need for handholding and mentoring support
for SPUs to achieve higher rankings from various accreditation agencies. 67Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
7. Frequent Leadership Changes: Frequent changes in the position of the Vice Chancellor
(VC) lead to a lack of continuity in leadership, impacting the strategic direction and stability
of SPUs.
8. Underrepresentation of Academicians in Key SPU Bodies: There is a lack of
representation of academicians in SPU administrative positions, which hampers the
academic functions of the university.
B. Recruitment and Capacity Building of Faculty and Administrators
1. Lack of Transparency in Appointment Processes: The lack of transparency in the
appointment process for both teaching and non-teaching staff poses significant concerns.
This undermines the credibility of the selection process and raises questions about fairness
and integrity. To rectify this issue, there is an urgent need for transparent and merit-based
appointment procedures that prioritize qualifications, experience, and suitability for the
role.
2. Faculty Shortage for Postgraduate Courses: An acute shortage of faculty members
to manage postgraduate-level courses across universities poses a significant challenge.
3. Rigid Faculty Recruitment Process: The retirement of teaching faculty and the
requirement for State Government approval for each new recruitment is a significant
challenge. Additionally, lack of active involvement by guest faculty members in research
endeavours exacerbates this issue.
4. Heavy Reliance on Contractual Positions: Faculty recruitment heavily leans towards
contractual positions, leading to a substantial proportion of faculty members occupying
temporary positions. This precarious employment situation hampers the establishment of
a stable academic environment. Strategies should be implemented to address the issue of
overreliance on contractual faculty within academic institutions by creating pathways for
contractual faculty to transition into permanent positions, providing professional development
opportunities, and ensuring equitable treatment in terms of pay and benefits.
IV. Employability
A. Skilling and Employability Enhancement for Students across Streams
1. Talent Outflow from states due to lack of relevant employability skills: In many
states, the talent pool and resources employed in local industries predominantly originate
from outside the state. A significant contributing factor to this trend is the inadequate
English language proficiency among local youth. Consequently, one of the primary focal
points for the State Governments is to address this challenge.There is also a pressing need
to enhance the employability skills of students, thereby encouraging them to remain within
the state and contribute to its growth and development, not only at a regional but also a
national level.
2. Outdated Curriculum and Limited Adaptability: Lack of revision and curricular
updates to meet industry demands and technological advancements is a major challenge. 68Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
This is coupled with a lack of balance in academic rigour with practical applicability while
fostering self-learning and lifelong learning skills.
3. Disparity in Sports Education Eligibility Criteria: There exists a disparity in the
eligibility criteria for teaching in Physical Education compared to other courses. For Physical
Education, the eligibility for teaching is 3+2+2 (3-year undergrad, 2 years of B.P.Ed + 2 years
of M.P.Ed.), whereas for other courses it is 3+2 (Undergrad + Masters) years. This requires
rectification for consistency and fairness.
B. Academia-Industry Interface
1. Limited Industry-Academia Collaboration: Limited engagement with the private
sector hampers opportunities for collaborative research, skill development, and revenue
generation, limiting SPUs’ ability to meet industry demands and enhance student
employability.
2. Need for Industry Mentorship for Student and Faculty-led Entrepreneurship:
There is a lack of industry mentorship for student and faculty-led entrepreneurship ideas
with high potential for commercialization.
3. Insufficient Uptake of Professor of Practice positions: There is inadequate uptake
of Professor of Practice positions by high quality industry professionals and practitioners.
4. Inadequate Industry Participation in Curriculum and Pedagogical Development:
The participation of industry partners in curriculum and pedagogical development and
revision is limited, which impedes the relevance of the content and pedagogical methods. 69Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
University of Mumbai, Maharashtra 70Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
CHAPTER-VII
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS WITH
IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP AND
PERFORMANCE SUCCESS INDICATORS
The recommendations detailed in this chapter have emerged from the challenges identified
in Chapter VI and solutions proposed during the consultations held with State and Central
Government Officers, Vice-Chancellors and Senior Academicians of State Public Universities, and
Heads of State Higher Education Councils. The recommendations have been categorised under
the four focus areas i.e., Quality, Funding and Financing, Governance, and Employability. Several
good practices by States and initiatives of the Central Government have also been highlighted.
A lot of recommendations have financial implications. Hence, their implementation will substantially
depend on the following three prerequisites:
1. Increasing the combined investment of Centre and States on education to 6% of GDP as
recommended in NEP 2020
2. Increasing the R&D Investment (public and private) to 2% of GDP as recommended in the
Economic Survey 2017-18
3. State Governments utilising significant portion of the increased funds devolved under the 14
th
and
15
th
Finance Commissions towards education, especially higher education and research.
Throughout this chapter, SPUs have been frequently referred to as Leading SPUs and Aspirational
SPUs. Leading SPUs are those which feature in the top 50 ranked SPUs in the NIRF Rankings 2024.
Aspirational SPUs are those which do not feature in the top 50 ranked SPUs in NIRF Rankings
2024. Also, all recommendations made in this chapter with respect to SPUs may be appropriately
applied to the affiliated colleges. 71Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Figure 7.1: Summary of Policy Recommendations 72Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1. QUALITY
A. Improving Quality of Research
Figure 7.2: Recommendations for Improving Quality of Research
1. Introduce a National Research Policy: A comprehensive National Research Policy that
acknowledges and addresses diverse structural and functional needs of universities across the
country may be introduced. This policy should provide guidelines and frameworks for promoting
research activities, allocating resources, and fostering collaboration between universities, research
institutions, industries, and government bodies. The policy should cover the entire spectrum of
STEM and non-STEM fields of study. (NEP Clause: 17.6)
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Develop a draft National Research Policy in alignment with the Anusandhan National
Research Foundation outlining funding, collaboration, and performance metrics.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Finalize and implement the National Research Policy.
» Establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the Policy’s impact. 73Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1.2 Actors Responsible
» Ministry of Education
» Ministry of Science & Technology
» Ministry of Health
» Ministry of Agriculture
» NITI Aayog
» Anusandhan National Research Foundation
1.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Mechanism for regular Monitoring and Evaluation of Policy is in place.
2. Promote Collaborative and Interdisciplinary Research
2A. Establish Dedicated Research Hubs: Promote the creation of dedicated Research Hubs
within cluster of SPUs, focusing on specific areas of study or interdisciplinary research themes.
These hubs can serve as focal points for collaborative research initiatives, bringing together faculty
members, students, and external partners to address complex challenges and pursue cutting-edge
research projects in STEM and non-STEM areas. (NEP Clause: 11.12; Chapter-3, S.No.-5,6; Chapter-6,
S.No.-12; Chapter-7, Component-1, RUSA)
2A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Identify and establish Research Hubs in cluster of SPUs, based on core competencies of
identified universities.
2A.2 Actors Responsible
» Ministry of Education
» Ministry of Science & Technology
» Ministry of Health
» All Regulatory Bodies (including UGC/AICTE/NCTE/PCI /BCI/NCTE/NMC/DCI/ICAR)
» State Governments
» SPUs
» NITI Aayog
2A.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Establishment of dedicated Research Hubs focusing on specific research themes developed
in SPUs across all geographies.
» Number of clusters in Global Innovation Index’s S&T clusters.
» Allocation of grants within state budgets for R&D activities as well as higher education
development initiatives. 74Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2B. Provide R&D Advisory to Cluster Universities: Establishing an R&D Advisory Committee
is critical for providing guidance and support in fostering R&D within the cluster. This Committee
can comprise experts from academia, industry, and research bodies, offering valuable insights and
recommendations to facilitate the growth of R&D activities. Their expertise can help SPUs identify
research priorities, navigate funding opportunities, and establish collaborative partnerships to
advance R&D initiatives.
2B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
»Establish R&D Advisory Committees for SPUs.
2B.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
»Ministry of Education
2B.3 Performance Success Indicator
»R&D Advisory Committees for cluster and other SPUs are in place.
2C. Foster Collaborative Partnerships: Facilitate university partnerships with research
institutions, industries, and government bodies to leverage their resources, expertise, and
infrastructure. Collaborative research initiatives can enhance the quality and impact of research
conducted in SPUs, leading to innovative solutions and knowledge transfer for real-world
applications (NIRF Clause: 2D).
2C.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Setup/establish an industry/government/community outreach/engagement centre in every
SPU.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Facilitate collaborative research partnerships with other universities, research institutions,
industries, and government bodies through organizations like AIU, CII, and FICCI.
2C.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»All Regulatory Bodies
»AIU
»CII/FICCI/ Local industry bodies/chapters 75Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»MSME Associations
»District Innovation Councils
»State Governments
2C.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Number of industry/government/community outreach/engagement centres established
and number of MoUs signed with other universities, research institutions, industries, and
government bodies.
2C.3 Central Government Initiative
2C.3.1 Impacting Research Innovation and Technology (IMPRINT) Scheme
Launched in 2015 by the Department of Higher Education and the Department of Science
and Technology to address critical engineering challenges and translating academic research
into practical technologies. Coordinated by leading institutions like the IITs and IISc, the
scheme addressed societal issues across 10 domains, including healthcare, energy, sustainable
habitat, advanced materials, and water resources, fostering collaboration between academia,
industries, and government bodies to drive innovation. Between 2015 and 2018, IMPRINT
1.0 supported 142 research projects with a total funding of `320.78 crores, resulting in 42
prototypes and significant technological advancements. Building on this success, IMPRINT
2.0 was launched in 2018 with a multi-partner funding model to enhance academia-industry
collaboration. By January 2025, 176 projects were sanctioned with an average cost of `2
crores per project. It had seen active participation from 172 Lead Principal Investigators
(PI), 303 Co-Principal Investigators (Co-PI), 214 collaborators, 179 industry partners, and
supported by 41 lead institutions and 82 partner institutions. This extensive network
benefitted thousands of researchers and institutions, promoting indigenous development and
self-reliance in research. With its focus on pressing national priorities, IMPRINT established
itself as a key driver of innovation, bridging the gap between academic research and industry
requirements while contributing significantly to India’s socio-economic growth.
3. Create Research Support and Capability Building Ecosystem
3A. Create Research Support Offices: Establish dedicated Research Support Offices within
SPUs to assist faculty members and researchers in various aspects of research, including grant
writing, project management, and accessing research funding opportunities. These offices can
provide valuable guidance, resources, and training to faculty members and researchers, facilitating
their research endeavours and increasing their competitiveness for external funding in STEM and
non-STEM areas. (NEP Clause: 11.12)
3B. Implement Comprehensive Research Training Programmes for Faculty: Develop
and implement comprehensive training programmes and workshops aimed at enhancing research
skills among faculty members. These programmes should cover various aspects of research
methodology, grant writing, publication ethics, and research project management. By providing 76Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
opportunities for continuous learning and professional development, universities can foster a
culture of research excellence and innovation. (NEP Clause: 24.4)
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Establish Research Support Offices in SPUs.
» Training and capacity building programmes to be conducted for faculty members to
effectively utilise the services of Research Support Offices.
3.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»Ministry of Science & Technology
»Ministry of Health
»All Regulatory Bodies
»Capacity Building Commission
»State Governments
»SPUs
3.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Number of Research Support Offices established in SPUs.
»Dedicated budgets allocated towards research and research infrastructure in SPUs.
» Number of training programmes per university for faculty on research methodology, grant
writing, and publication ethics designed and implemented.
4. Enhance Research Funding
4A. Upgradation of Infrastructure: Allocate adequate resources to upgrade infrastructure
and establish dedicated research spaces within SPUs, especially in hilly and North Eastern States.
Enhancing facilities such as laboratories, libraries, and research centres will significantly improve their
research capabilities and foster a conducive environment for innovation and discovery. Moreover, it
will attract skilled researchers and retain local talent (NEP Clause: 17.9,NIRF Clause: 1D)
4A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Allocate resources to SPUs for upgrading research facilities.
4A.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»Ministry of Education
»Ministry of Science & Technology 77Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Ministry of Health
»Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region
»All Regulatory Bodies
»Industry Partners
4A.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Dedicated budget allocated towards research facilities and their maintenance and
upgradation at the SPU level.
»Dedicated budget at government level for upgradation of research facilities in SPUs in Hilly
and North Eastern States.
»Well defined mechanism/ confirmed process in place for regularly providing adequate
resources for upgrading research facilities and infrastructure in SPUs.
4B. State Grants for R&D Activities: Allocate state grants specifically dedicated to R&D
activities to address the issue of insufficient funding in SPUs (NEP Clause: 17.3).
4B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Allocate earmarked grants for R&D activities in STEM & non-STEM areas in SPUs
and higher education development in the state budgets and through the Anusandhan
National Research Foundation.
4B.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»State Governments
»Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF)
4B.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Allocation of adequate funds for R&D activities and higher education development as a
specific % of the state budgets and ANRF.
4C. Faculty Incentives and Rewards: Provide performance-based incentives and rewards to
encourage faculty engagement in research activities. This may include offering research grants,
sabbaticals, travel funds for conferences, and recognition schemes for outstanding research
achievements. By recognizing and rewarding faculty contributions to research, universities can
motivate and incentivize their active participation in advancing knowledge and addressing societal
challenges. Streamlining administrative processes and providing support for research-related
activities will empower faculty members and researchers to focus on advancing knowledge and
addressing critical societal challenges (NEP Clause: 13.5) 78Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
4C.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» SPUs to chart out an action plan in the Institutional Development Plan to offer and
implement performance-based incentives to the faculty for research.
» Implement flexible administrative policies to prioritize research and reduce the
administrative workload of teachers.
4C.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»Ministry of Science & Technology
»Ministry of Health
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
4C.3 Performance Success Indicator
» List of performance-based incentives for research to the faculty are finalised and
implemented at the SPUs.
» Revision of administrative policies for teachers to facilitate prioritisation of research activities.
5. Support Research Commercialization and Start-ups: Provide comprehensive support
for the commercialization of research and start-ups in SPUs. This support should encompass
patenting, marketing, and establishing connections with investors to facilitate the transition of
research findings into viable commercial ventures (NEP Clause: 11.12) (NIRF Clause: 2D)
5.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Establish Patent Cells in all SPUs to create awareness and for handholding.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Setup incubators to provide comprehensive support for research commercialization
and start-ups in all Leading SPUs.
5.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»UGC/AICTE
»Leading SPUs
»State Governments 79Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
5.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Dedicated incubator to provide comprehensive support for research commercialization
and start-ups in every district.
» Number of research findings commercialized and number of start-ups established every year.
5.4 Central Government Initiative
5.4.1 Setting up of Research Parks in IITs
To foster innovation and collaboration between academia and industry, and providing a
platform for startups and researchers to develop cutting-edge technologies, the Central
Government initiated the setting up of 9 Research Parks, one each at IIT Madras, IIT
Kharagpur, IIT Bombay, IIT Gandhinagar, IIT Delhi, IIT Guwahati, IIT Kanpur, IIT Hyderabad,
and IISc Bangalore in 2016. The key objective was to facilitate knowledge transfer between
academia and industry, support startups, and foster technology-based ventures, and also
develop world-class R&D infrastructure in HEIs.
6. Create Centres of Excellence to Address Local Challenges: Cluster of SPUs should
identify 2 to 3 local issues and establish Centres of Excellence dedicated to addressing these challenges.
These centres can serve as hubs for interdisciplinary research, collaboration with local communities,
and development of innovative solutions tailored to regional needs (NEP Clause 17.4).
6.1 Implementation Roadmap
Long-Term (5+ Years)
»Create Centres of Excellence in cluster of SPUs to address local challenges.
6.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
6.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Dedicated Centres of Excellence established in cluster of SPUs to address local
challenges.
» Special grants provided by the funding agencies for establishing such Centres of
Excellence.
6.4 State Good Practices
27.4.1 Odisha: Odisha Higher Education Programme for Excellence and Equity
(OHEPEE)
Launched in 2017, OHEPEE was a transformative initiative aimed at enhancing the quality 80Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
and accessibility of higher education in Odisha. Supported by a substantial investment of
`1,030 crores, the programme covered over 850 colleges across the state, focusing on
uplifting educational standards and infrastructure. OHEPEE directly benefited 1000+ students
by providing improved educational resources and opportunities. Faculty members gained
access to enhanced training and professional development programmes. As many as 11
research centres of excellence (CoEs) of five public universities were given sustainability
grants to further their work and provide research internships to UG and PG students. The
research CoEs, operational at Sambalpur, Berhampur, Fakir Mohan, Utkal, and Rama Devi
Women’s Universities conducted Odisha-centric applied research in areas of natural sciences,
engineering, humanities, and social sciences. The Odisha State Higher Education Council and
a panel of experts from various fields evaluated the research work of the CoEs and provided
them a sustainability grant of around `61.5 lakh under Mukhyamantri Research and Innovation
Fellowship programme for both 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic sessions.
7. Designate Leading SPUs as Research and Knowledge Partners: Designate Leading
SPUs as research and knowledge partners in government initiatives. This recognition can
enrich academia, stimulate research-driven solutions, and potentially generate revenue through
consultancies.
7.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Designate Leading SPUs with an established track record in research and policy/project
evaluation as Research and Knowledge Partners for projects of the Central and State
Governments.
7.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»Central Government
7.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Dedicated number of research projects undertaken per year in collaboration with Leading
SPUs as a fixed % of total number of projects by State Governments and Central Government.
8. Provide Handholding Support to Aspirational SPUs to apply for ANRF and other
research grants: Provide handholding to Aspirational SPUs to apply and benefit from ANRF
research grants.
8.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-term (0-2 years)
»Provide handholding to Aspirational SPUs to apply and benefit from ANRF and other
research grants. 81Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
8.2 Actors Responsible:
»State Governments
»All Regulatory Bodies
»Aspirational SPUs
8.3 Performance Success Indicator:
» Number of Aspirational SPUs provided handholding support to apply for ANRF and
other research grants.
9. Provide Dedicated Funding for Humanities and Fundamental Research
9A. Proivde Support for Humanities Research: Humanities departments in SPUs require
support to enhance teaching and research. Strengthening collaboration with organizations like
ICHR, ICSSR, ICPR, NTM, and Sahitya Akademi would also bolster research in these fields (NEP
Clause: 17.5).
9A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Strengthen support for humanities research through infrastructure and collaborations
of SPUs with research organisations.
9A.2 Actors Responsible
»UGC/AICTE
»ICSSR/ICHR/ICPR
»SPUs
»Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF)
»Central Government
»State Governments
9A.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Dedicated funding towards humanities research in SPUs as a fixed % of total R&D funding.
9B. Fundamental Research: Increase research funding to support fundamental research in
higher education (NEP Clause 17.3).
9B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Long-Term (5+ Years)
» Enhance research funding for fundamental research and attract diverse students from
India and abroad. 82Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
9B.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»Ministry of Science & Technology
»Ministry of Health
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF)
9B.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Dedicated funding towards fundamental research in SPUs as a fixed % of total R&D funding.
10. Promote State Universities Consortia and Networking: Promote networking and
consortia among SPUs to ensure access to research infrastructure, including laboratories, libraries,
and computational resources. Facilitating collaboration in this manner will enhance research
capabilities and foster innovation within SPUs. (NEP Clause: 12.1)
10.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Promote SPU consortia and networking by creating a platform to share best practices,
solutions to problems, innovations, resource mobilization mechanisms and sharing of
resources.
10.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
10.3 Performance Success Indicator
» SPU consortia are in place for networking and to ensure access to research infrastructure
to share best practices, solutions to problems, and innovations.
11. Ensure Ease of Regulation for R&D Equipment Procurement
11A. Grant Tax Exemptions for R&D Equipment: Grant exemptions from taxes for
equipment procured for R&D activities in SPUs.
11A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Grant exemptions for taxes on R&D equipment for SPUs. 83Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
11A.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Finance
11A.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Enabling provisions to grant tax exemptions on R&D equipment are in place.
11B. Implement Single-Window Clearances for Research and Testing Facilities:
Implement ‘single-window’ clearances for medical and engineering research and testing facilities in
SPUs to simplify and expedite administrative processes, enabling efficient and seamless access to
necessary approvals and permissions.
11B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Implement ‘single-window’ clearances for research and testing facilities for SPUs.
11B.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Finance
»Ministry of Education
»Ministry of Science & Technology
»Ministry of Health
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
11B.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Implementation of ‘single-window’ clearances mechanism for research projects
submitted by SPUs.
12. Provide Technical Support to Ensure Maintenance of high-end Research
Equipment: Provide technical support staff to maintain and operate sophisticated equipment in
all Leading SPUs, facilitating smooth functioning of high-end research laboratories and facilities.
12.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Provide dedicated funding to hire technical support staff for research laboratories in
Leading SPUs for efficient utilisation and maintenance of research infrastructure.
»Grant allocation for the maintenance of research equipment. 84Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
12.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
12.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Dedicated technical support staff employed in research laboratories in all Leading SPUs.
»Allocation of grants specifically designated for the maintenance of research equipment.
13. Encourage Student-Faculty Collaboration in Research
13A. Implement Student-Faculty Research Programmes: Establish student-faculty pairing
programmes where students are matched with faculty members to assist them in research projects.
These programmes provide students with hands-on research experience and exposure to the
research process, while also providing faculty members with valuable assistance and support in their
research endeavours. This initiative can promote collaboration and knowledge sharing between
students and faculty, enriching the research environment within the SPUs (NEP Clause: 17.8).
13A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Implement student-faculty research pairing programmes.
13A.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
13A.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Number of active student-faculty research pairing programmes per SPU.
13B. Establish Researcher Mentorship Programmes: Develop mentorship programmes
that pair experienced researchers with junior faculty members. These mentorship relationships
can provide invaluable guidance, support, and professional development opportunities to junior
faculty members, helping them navigate the complexities of academic research and advance their
careers (NEP Clause: 17.11).
13B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Establish researcher mentorship programmes.
13B.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs 85Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
13B.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Number of active researcher mentorship programmes per SPU.
14. Create Career Pathways in Research
14A. Provide Post-doctoral Fellowships: Provide sufficient post-doctoral fellowships to
support R&D developments and substantial research initiatives in STEM and non-STEM areas,
encouraging advanced studies and innovations at the SPU level.
14A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Enhance funding for post-doctoral fellowships, especially for women in SPUs.
14A.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»State Governments
14A.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Dedicated number of fellowships awarded for post-doctoral research, especially
to women, Economically and Socially Challenged Students (ESCS) and Physically
Challenged Students in SPUs (NIRF Clause: 4 B,C,D). (Quantum of fellowship to be at
par with remuneration to Assistant Professors in order to encourage career pathways
in research.)
14B. Develop Dedicated Schemes for Students and Teachers with Research Potential:
Design and implement tailored schemes aimed at identifying and nurturing students and teachers
with research potential. These schemes can include scholarships, fellowships, research internships,
and other opportunities to engage students and teachers in research activities, fostering a culture
of research excellence within the SPU community (NEP Clause: 17.11).
14B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Develop and offer scholarships and fellowships for students and teachers from SPUs with
research potential.
» Consolidated information on available scholarships/fellowships from Central Government
(available on NSP Portal), State Governments, international institutions, other councils and
agencies, and those given by individual universities to be provided on a single platform.
14B.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»Ministry of Science & Technology 86Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Ministry of Health
»State Governments
»SPUs
»All Regulatory Bodies
14B.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Provision of sufficient numbers of scholarships and research fellowships for students and
teachers of SPUs.
»Sufficient funds have been arranged for this purpose.
»Consolidated information is available on single platform.
14B.4 Central Government Initiative
14B.4.1 Prime Minister’s Research Fellows (PMRF) Scheme
Launched in 2018 by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, PMRF Scheme
aimed to support India’s brightest talents in doctoral research. With a focus on building
world-class research ecosystems, the scheme encouraged scholars to tackle challenging
and innovative research problems. It aligned with the vision of retaining top talent and
fostering indigenous research excellence in critical areas such as AI, clean energy, and
healthcare. The fellowship provided `70,000 per month for the first two years, `75,000
in the third year, and `80,000 for the fourth and fifth years. Additionally, a research grant
of `2 lakhs per year was provided. It has been implemented across premier institutions,
including IITs, IISc, IISERs, and select Central Universities and NITs offering science
and technology programmes. Between May 2022 and December 2024, the scheme
benefited 7,079 scholars, many of whom published groundbreaking research in high-
impact journals. Union Budget 2025 made a provision for 10,000 fellowships over the
next 5 years at IITs and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) under the PMRF scheme.
Allocation for the scheme has been increased from `350 crores in 2024-25 to `600 crores
in 2025-26.
14B.5 State Good Practices
14B.5.1 Tamil Nadu: Chief Minister Research Fellowship (CMRF)
It was launched in 2022 by the Government of Tamil Nadu with the aim of turning
the state into a ‘Research Hub’. The objective of the scheme was to create a research
platform for meritorious economically backward postgraduates and develop
professional/academic research careers under the mentorship of an established
researcher. It had an estimated budget outlay of `12.31crores in 2023. The monthly
fellowship amount for the first two years under the scheme was `25,000 and
`28,000 for the third year. 87Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
14B.5.2 Jharkhand: Student-Centric Schemes
To provide support to students pursuing their higher and technical education, Government
of Jharkhand initiated three student-centric schemes in 2022. The Guruji Student Credit
Card Scheme (GSCCS) with education loans up to `15 lakhs at a concessional 4% annual
interest rate for students from economically weaker sections to pursue higher education.
The Eklavya Prashikshan Yojana, with free coaching for competitive exams and a `2,500
monthly stipend for 27,000 students annually. The Mukhyamantri Shiksha Protsahan Yojana
with annual support for 8,000 students for free coaching and `2,500 monthly assistance for
careers in engineering, medicine, law, fashion, hotel management, and accountancy.
15. Provide Access to Research Journals and Databases through INFLIBNET and
ONOS: There is a need for increased support from INFLIBNET and ONOS to provide access to
research journals and databases like Science Direct, Springer, Scopus and Web of Science to SPUs.
15.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Increase INFLIBNET and ONOS support for free access to research resources in all SPUs.
15.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»UGC/AICTE
15.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Dedicated financial support extended to INFLIBNET and ONOS for providing free
access to research resources.
15.4 Central Government Initiative
15.4.1 One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) Scheme
Launched in November 2024, ONOS aimed to democratize access to high-quality scholarly
research in India. With a budget allocation of `6,000 crores for three years, ONOS provided
comprehensive access to over 13,000 e-journals from 30 leading international publishers to
nearly 1.8 crore students, faculty, and researchers across 6,300 government-managed HEIs
and Central Government R&D institutions, including numerous SPUs. By offering centralized
access to a vast array of international journals, ONOS aimed to bridge existing knowledge
gaps, particularly benefiting institutions in tier 2/3 cities. This equitable distribution of
resources aligned with the NEP 2020 and the ANRF, fostering a culture of research and
innovation nationwide. The Information and Library Network (INFLIBNET) coordinated the
implementation of ONOS, ensuring a user-friendly experience for all beneficiaries through
a unified digital portal. 88Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
16. Create a Curated List of high quality Journals: Create a curated list of high-quality
journals to guide faculty members in their research endeavours. The list should exclusively
include journals indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) to maintain high standards for faculty
promotion, aligning with the guidelines set by regulatory bodies such as the UGC.
16.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Create curated list of high-quality journals in STEM and non-STEM areas. (UGC CARE list
to be regularly updated).
16.2 Actors Responsible
»UGC
16.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Curated list of high-quality journals is prepared (UGC CARE list regularly updated). 89Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
B. Improving Quality of Pedagogy and Curriculum
Figure 7.3: Recommendations for Improving Quality of Pedagogy and Curriculum
1. Measure Teaching Quality on a Semester Basis: Implementing a system to measure
the quality of teaching on a semester basis can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of
teaching practices at SPUs. This could involve ranking SPUs based on their teaching performance,
with established parameters to gauge the quality of teachers and teaching methods. Regular
evaluations promote continuous improvement and accountability in the delivery of educational
services (NEP Clause 23.5).
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Develop a framework with clear parameters to evaluate teaching effectiveness. This
may include student feedback, peer evaluations, classroom observations, and course
completion rates.
» Implement this framework to measure the quality of teaching on a semester basis in
SPUs.
» Utilize evaluation results to provide constructive feedback to faculty for continuous
improvement. Consider using the evaluation system for performance-based incentives
or recognition programmes for outstanding teachers. 90Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
»Analyse the results of the semester-based teaching quality evaluations across all SPUs
and refine the framework, if necessary.
Long Term (5+ Years)
»Regularly review and refine the teaching quality measurement system based on new
developments in higher education.
»Encourage faculty participation in research and professional development opportunities
to stay updated in their fields.
»Foster a culture of innovation in curriculum design by encouraging faculty to develop
new courses and teaching methods.
1.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
1.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Implementation of regular surveys or feedback mechanisms to collect student
perceptions of teaching quality at the end of each semester.
»Implementation of performance-based incentives or recognition programmes for
outstanding teachers and those making substantial improvements.
2. Ensure Relevance of Curriculum
2A. Ensure Regular Review of Curriculum: Establish committees to regularly review and
update curricula to ensure alignment with industry standards and job market demands
(NEP Clause
12.2).
2 B. Identify Emerging Sectors and Courses: Identify emerging sectors and introduce relevant
courses to attract student interest and enhance admission rates (NEP Clause: 20.6).
2B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Establish curriculum review committees within each SPU to review and update existing
curricula across various disciplines on a regular basis.
»Partner with industry experts to identify current job market needs and emerging skills
requirements.
»Update curricula to reflect industry standards and integrate emerging fields of study
Medium Term (2-5 Years)
»Introduce new courses related to identified emerging and sunrise sectors. 91Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2B.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
2B.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Regular revision and updation of curriculum
»Regular introduction of new courses in emerging areas and sunrise sectors.
3. Emphasize Multidisciplinary Education and Academic Flexibility: Emphasize a
multidisciplinary approach in higher education as envisaged in NEP 2020 to broaden students’
knowledge beyond their specific fields of study, promoting holistic learning and skill development.
Embracing multidisciplinary approaches and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration can further
enhance students’ understanding of complex issues and prepare them for diverse career pathways.
By prioritizing relevance, inclusivity, flexibility, and innovation, SPUs can effectively equip students
with skills and knowledge needed to thrive in the rapidly changing world. (NEP Clause: 11.3)(NIRF
Clause: 1F)
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Offer electives and minor programmes that complement students’ major fields of study.
»Align with Academic Bank of Credits and multiple entry-multiple exit system.
3.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
»All Regulatory Bodies
3.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Onboarding all students on the Academic Bank of Credits.
»Implementation of credit transfer system.
4. Create Framework for Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities
(MERUs): Create policy framework and guidelines for MERUs and enable the transition of leading
SPUs to MERUs. (NEP Clause: 17.6, 20.2)
4.1 Implementation Roadmap:
Long-Term (5+ Years)
»Create a world-class framework for establishment of MERUs. 92Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Handhold and finance Leading SPUs to transition to MERUs.
4.2 Actors Responsible:
»Central Government
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
4.3 Performance Success Indicator:
»Creation of framework for establishment of MERUs.
»Number of Leading SPUs that have transitioned/are in the process of transitioning to
MERUs.
5. Enhance Student Support Services: Enhance support services for students facing academic
challenges, such as tutoring, counselling, and academic advising, to ensure their success and retention
(NEP Clause: 12.4, 12.9) (Chapter 6: Activities under Components of PM USHA, S.No. 44).
5.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2Years)
»Enhance support services for students facing academic challenges, such as tutoring,
counselling, and academic advisory services to guide students in course selection and
academic planning to ensure their success and retention.
»Develop and implement mental health and wellness programmes for students and
research scholars.
5.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
5.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Implementation of student support services systems and access to mental health and
wellness programmes for students, scholars and faculty in all SPUs.
6. Promote Holistic Education in SPUs: Ensure that Higher Education curricula focus
on providing Holistic Education that would focus on Environment Education, Values-based
Education and Global Citizenship Education. (NEP Clause 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 11.8)
A. Environment Education must include areas such as climate change, pollution, waste
management, sanitation, conservation of biological diversity, management of biological
resources and biodiversity, forest and wildlife conservation, and sustainable development and
living.
B. Values-based Education must focus on the development of humanistic, ethical,
Constitutional, and universal human values of truth (Satya), righteous conduct (Dharma), 93Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
peace (Shanti), love (Prem), nonviolence (Ahimsa), scientific temper, citizenship values, and
also life-skills. Lessons in service (Seva) and participation in community service programmes
must be considered an integral part of a holistic education.
C. Global Citizenship Education must focus on empowering learners to become aware
of and understand global issues and become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant,
inclusive, secure, and sustainable societies.
6.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0–2 Years):
»Integrate thematic focus areas of Holistic Education from the UGC National Higher
Education Qualifications Framework (NHEQF) into the curricula and co-curricular
activities of HEIs.
»Establish partnerships between HEIs and community organisations to promote
community engagement and service.
»Integrate sustainability concepts and themes across core and elective courses.
»Develop specialized courses or programmes in sustainability-related fields.
»Partner with NGOs or organizations working on SDGs to offer internship opportunities
for students.
»Organize workshops and seminars to raise awareness about the SDGs among students
and faculty.
Medium-Term (3–5 Years):
»Introduce interdisciplinary courses focused on environmental sustainability, universal
human values, and multicultural competence.
»Establish dedicated units or cells within all SPUs to facilitate and monitor the
implementation of holistic education initiatives.
»Develop SPU-level strategies to integrate UNSDGs with the teaching-learning and
research ecoystems.
Long-Term (5+ Years):
»Institutionalize holistic education as a core philosophy of all SPUs through policy
frameworks.
»Ensure all HEIs adopt measurable indicators of holistic education to monitor planetary,
societal, community, and individual contributions.
»Facilitate global collaborations to share innovations and best practices in holistic
education. 94Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
6.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»Ministry of Education
6.3 Performance Success Indicators
» Number of SPUs implementing thematic areas (planetary, societal, community, and
individual) of holistic education in their core curriculum and pedagogical processes.
» Percentage of curricula mapped with the aforementioned four thematic areas across
HEIs.
» Number of students participating in community service and environmental sustainability
projects.
» Surveys measuring improvements in emotional quotient (EQ), spiritual quotient (SQ),
and human values inculcation among students.
»Organisation of workshops and seminars on SDG themes.
»Collaborations with NGOs and multilateral institutions.
6.4 Central Government Initiative
6.4.1 Bharatiya Gyan Parampara
The Indian Knowledge System (IKS) initiative, a division of the Ministry of Education was established
in October 2020 to integrate India’s rich traditional knowledge into the modern education
framework. As of January 2025, 51 IKS centres had been established across India to catalyze
original research on IKS, and over 5,200 internships offered on the same. These centers benefited
numerous students and researchers across SPUs by fostering a deeper understanding of India’s
cultural heritage and its contemporary applications. By incorporating IKS into curricula, these
institutions enhanced academic diversity, promoted interdisciplinary studies, and enhanced a sense
of pride and awareness about India’s rich culture and civilisational heritage. 95Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
C. Digitalization of Higher Education
Figure 7.4: Recommendations for Digitalization of Higher Education
1. Create state-of-the-art Digital Infrastructure and Learning Platforms
1A. Invest in Infrastructure for Digital Learning: To address infrastructure gaps, it is
essential to invest in suitable facilities tailored for digital learning. This includes creating conducive
environments equipped with the necessary technology and resources to support effective
educational delivery in online and blended learning formats. Upgrading existing infrastructure and
establishing new facilities in SPUs designed specifically for digital learning can help ensure seamless
integration of technology into the educational environment (NEP Clause: 12.5) (NIRF Clause: 1E)
1B. Adopt Digital Platforms for Student Life Cycle Management:
Adopt digital platforms
for admissions, student management, pedagogy and examination processes to streamline operations
and enhance efficiency (NEP Clause: 12.6, NIRF Clause: 3A).
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2Years)
»Conduct a thorough assessment of existing IT infrastructure in SPUs and identify
universities with the most significant infrastructure gaps for initial upgrades.
»Invest in high-speed internet connectivity across campuses to support digital learning
initiatives.
»Upgrade classrooms and labs with technology conducive to online and blended learning.
This may include interactive whiteboards, projectors, and video conferencing equipment.
»Establish dedicated digital learning centres or computer labs equipped with necessary
software and hardware.
»Integrate credits and curricula to utilize existing online and digital platforms of the
Ministry of Education, Government of India. 96Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Adopt digital platforms for admissions, student management, pedagogy and examination
processes to streamline operations and enhance efficiency.
Medium Term (2-5 Years)
»Continue upgrading IT infrastructure across all SPUs based on the initial assessment.
»Provide technical support staff for maintaining and troubleshooting technology issues
within universities.
»Bridge the digital divide by providing affordable access to laptops, tablets, or other
necessary devices for students from underprivileged backgrounds.
»Identify and adopt digital platforms for student lifecycle management which includes
admissions, registration, fee payment, academic records, and course management.
»Train faculty, staff, and students on using new platforms.
Long Term (5+Years)
»Foster collaboration between SPUs, technology companies, and educational technology
experts to develop innovative digital learning solutions.
»Offer training and support programmes to enhance digital literacy among students and
faculty.
1.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»State Governments
»All Regulatory Bodies
»SPUs
1.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Availability of state-of-the-art digital infrastructure in all SPUs.
»Dedicated digital learning centres/ computer labs established in every SPU and accessible
to students.
»Implementation of digital platform for student life cycle management in all SPUs.
1.4 Central Government Initiative
1.4.1 Online Learning Initiatives: NPTEL and SWAYAM
Digital initiatives like National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL)
launched in 2003 and Study Webs of Active-Learning for Young Aspiring Minds (SWAYAM)
launched in 2017 revolutionized Indian higher education. NPTEL, a collaboration of IITs and
IISc, offered free access to a vast repository of high-quality e-learning courses in various 97Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
disciplines, making it the world’s largest such repository. SWAYAM, a platform for MOOCs,
garnered over 4.6 crore student enrollments, with over 37 lakh learners earning certifications.
These initiatives enhanced the quality and reach of education by providing flexible learning
opportunities to students in SPUs. The UGC allows up to 20% of a programme’s courses
to be fulfilled through SWAYAM, promoting a blended learning model. By embracing these
digital initiatives, SPUs can provide inclusive, flexible, and high-quality education, preparing
students for the demands of the global knowledge economy. Additionally, the SWAYAM
Plus platform launched in 2024 provided applied education and improve employability,
entrepreneurship, job-centric and hands-on training for the youth through partnerships
with corporates such as HCLTech, Intel, Microsoft, TCS. The portal offered courses such as
Applied AI, App development, Data Science and Accounting, among 300 others.
1.4.2 National Digital Education Architecture (NDEAR)
Launched by the Ministry of Education in July 2021, NDEAR established a comprehensive
digital infrastructure for educational innovation. The framework supporting both school
and higher education, was founded on 10 core principles, including ecosystem-driven
development, open standards, and privacy by design, aiming to create a unified yet flexible
digital learning environment. It served students, parents, teachers, administrators, and
community members through learning and administrative interactions. Operating via 36
building blocks across 12 categories, NDEAR enabled stakeholders to develop compatible
educational platforms and solutions that align with its standards. Since launch, NDEAR
has achieved significant milestones: 60 crore energized textbooks, 1,200 crore QR codes,
500 crore learning sessions, and 1,500+ micro courses. The platform has issued over 10
crore verifiable credentials, maintains 110 crore assessment records, and engages 20,000+
ecosystem participants. With 150+ registrations on NDEAR-DIKSHA sandbox and 10 Vidya
Samiksha Kendras, it has demonstrated substantial progress in digitalizing India’s education
system.
1.5 State Good Practices
1.5.1 Kerala: ‘Let’s Go Digital’ Initiative
In 2021, the Government of Kerala initiated digital learning initiatives through ICT-based
teaching methods, providing Moodle-based LMS training to faculty, and digital course
content to students to bridge the digital divide. It introduced schemes like ‘Let’s Go Digital’
through the Kerala State Higher Education Council and the Digital University of Kerala,
offering training on model-based development and content creation. Furthermore, through
the Digicol project, customized syllabi were provided to colleges trained under this scheme,
promoting a tech-driven pedagogical approach. 98Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
D. Internationalization of Higher Education
Figure 7.5: Recommendations for Internationalization of Higher Education
1. Enhance Infrastructure and Faculty Quality: Enhance infrastructure and recruit
quality faculty to attract foreign students to Leading SPUs, promoting diversity, inclusion, and
internationalization. (NEP Clause: 12.7) (NIRF Clause: 4A, 4D)
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2 Years)
» Identify and prioritize Leading SPUs with existing infrastructure suitable for international
students.
» Allocate resources for necessary upgrades to classrooms, laboratories, and student
accommodation facilities.
» Enhance campus Wi-Fi connectivity and provide access to international academic databases.
» Develop an international marketing strategy to promote Leading SPUs abroad.
»Enable Leading SPUs to participate in international education fairs and conferences.
» Establish dedicated International Student Support Offices to guide overseas students
through the application process and address their needs on campus.
» Offer scholarship programmes for deserving international students pursuing courses in
Leading SPUs.
Long Term (5+ Years)
» Encourage and handhold Leading SPUs to participate in international university rankings
to improve their global visibility 99Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Continue international collaborations and faculty development programmes to establish
a strong reputation for research and education excellence.
1.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»All Regulatory Bodies
»Leading SPUs
1.3 Performance Success Indicators
»Upgraded infrastructure in all Leading SPUs, including improvements to classrooms,
laboratories, and student accommodation facilities.
»Participation of Leading SPUs in international education fairs, conferences, and
recruitment events.
»Establishment of dedicated International Student Support Offices in all Leading SPUs.
2. Collaborate with Foreign Universities: Foster collaborations with foreign universities to
offer students a global perspective and enrich their educational experience through cultural and
academic exchanges. Establish partnerships for joint research projects, faculty exchanges, and
student mobility programmes to facilitate cross-cultural learning and collaboration (Chapter 6:
Activities under Components of PM USHA, S.No. 13)( NEP Clause: 12.8).
2.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium Term (2-5 Years)
»Establish long-term partnerships of Leading SPUs with identified foreign universities.
»Develop mechanisms for smooth student mobility between Leading SPUs and partner
universities abroad.
2.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
2.3 Performance Success Indicators
»Implementation of partnerships with foreign universities for joint research projects,
faculty exchange programmes, and student exchange programmes.
2.4 State Government Good Practice
2.4.1 Foreign Universities in GIFT City
Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT City), located in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India’s
first operational smart city and international financial services centre. allowed world-class 100Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
foreign universities to establish campuses within its boundaries as announced in the Union
Budget 2023. These institutions can offer programmes in areas like Financial Management,
FinTech, and STEM disciplines, and are exempt from domestic regulations, except those
mandated by the International Financial Services Centers Authority (IFSCA). This initiative
aimed to foster a skilled workforce for the financial services and technology sectors.Foreign
Institutions like Deakin University, Australia, ranked among the Top 1% Universities worldwide,
would be offering their flagship courses - Master of Business Analytics and Master of Cyber
Security on their GIFT City campus. The University of Wollongong, Australia, would also be
establishing an International Branch Campus in GIFT City. As of December 2024, institutions
such as the Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland, University of Surrey and Coventry University,
UK, have also partnered with GIFT City.
3. Attract Talent from Abroad: Address the challenges faced by experts working in reputed
institutions abroad and make efforts to attract them to India through fellowship programmes and
support mechanisms to Leading SPUs (NEP Clause: 12.8).
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2 Years)
»Conduct outreach programmes to identify Indian scientists, professors and researchers
working abroad.
»Develop fellowship programmes and faculty development opportunities tailored to attract
them back to Leading SPUs on sabbaticals.
3.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»State Governments
»All Regulatory Bodies
»Leading SPUs
3.3 Performance Success Indicators
»Dedicated % of Indian scientists and researchers from overseas participating in fellowship
programmes in Leading SPUs.
3.4 Central Government Initiative
3.4.1 Scheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration
(SPARC)
Launched in 2018 by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, SPARC aimed to
promote high-quality research and academic excellence through international collaboration,
by facilitating partnerships between top-ranked Indian HEIs and globally recognized foreign
institutions. This was achieved through joint research projects, faculty and student mobility 101Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
programmes, and the exchange of knowledge and expertise. Beneficiaries of the scheme
included faculty and students from both Indian HEIs and their global partner institutions.
The initial phase of the scheme received an estimated budgetary allocation of `418 crores
to support its implementation by the Department of Higher Education.
4. Enable International Capacity-building for Faculty: Facilitate international exposure and
capacity-building programmes for faculty members to enhance their teaching methodologies and
research capabilities, thereby contributing to overall academic improvement.
4.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2 Years)
»Develop training programmes on internationalization for faculty members of Leading SPUs
to provide them international exposure and to enhance their teaching methodologies
and research capabilities, covering topics like cross-cultural communication, global
perspectives in teaching, and international student support.
»Organize webinars and workshops for the staff of International Student Support Offices
on various aspects related to internationalization and collaborations.
4.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»AIU
»SPUs
»Capacity Building Commission
4.3 Performance Success Indicators
»Participation of faculty members in training programmes on internationalization.
»Participation of staff of International Student Support Office in webinars and workshops.
5. Provide Sponsorship for Presentations at International Conferences: Reinstate
sponsorship programmes for SPUs, such as those previously offered by UGC, to enable faculty
members to attend international conferences to present their research findings. This reinstatement
will encourage researchers and enhance their engagement with the global scientific community.
5.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2 Years)
»Implement faculty exchange programmes for Leading SPUs with select foreign
universities for short-term visits.
»Identify and support faculty participation for research presentations in international
conferences and research collaborations. 102Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
5.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»SPUs
5.3 Performance Success Indicators
» Participation of faculty members of Leading SPUs in exchange programmes with select
foreign universities for short-term visits.
» Sponsorship programmes to enable faculty members to present their research findings
at international conferences.
6. Reframe Syllabus in Leading SPUs to Meet International Standards: Revise the existing
syllabus in Leading SPUs to align with international standards and enhance its recognition globally.
(NEP Clause: 12.7)
6.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2 Years)
» Conduct a review of existing model curricula to identify areas needing adjustments to
align with international standards.
6.2 Actors Involved
»Leading SPUs
»All Regularoty Bodies
6.3 Performance Success Indicators
»Implementation of mutual recognition of degrees/qualifications with select countries.
7. Promote Dual Degree Programmes in Leading SPUs: Promote dual degree programmes
wherein students complete coursework locally and conduct research at prestigious international
universities. Such programmes provide exposure to cutting-edge technologies and global best
practices (NEP Clause: 12.8).
7.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2Years)
» Identify foreign universities for long-term partnerships for joint research projects,
faculty exchange programmes, and student exchange programmes.
Medium Term (2-5Years)
» Establish mechanisms for long-term partnerships between Leading SPUs and partner
universities abroad. 103Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
7.2 Actors Responsible
»Leading SPUs
7.3 Performance Success Indicators
» Implementation of long-term partnerships with foreign universities for joint research
projects, faculty exchange programmes, and student exchange programmes.
8. Facilitate Institutional Capacity Building Programmes: All granting schemes including
FIST, PURSE, SAIF, SATHI, and STUTI should consider Leading SPUs at par with national premier
institutes, facilitating institutional capacity building.
8.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2Years)
» Include Leading SPUs alongside national institutes in existing funding schemes for
capacity building initiatives.
8.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»Ministry of Science & Technology
»Ministry of Health
»All Regulatory Bodies
8.3 Performance Success Indicators
»Dedicated % of funding schemes for Leading SPUs.
9. Collaborations to Promote Language Proficiency: Collaborate with international
organisations or councils to enhance language proficiency and prepare students for global
opportunities.
9.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short Term (0-2 Years)
» Partner with international language organisations to offer English and other foreign
language proficiency programmes for students.
» Encourage foreign language learning by offering additional language courses and
exchange programmes.
9.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments 104Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
9.3 Performance Success Indicators
» Implement partnerships, including agreements with renowned language institutions,
organisations, or language testing agencies.
9.4 State Good Practices
9.4.1 Punjab: English Language Proficiency
Recognizing the importance of English language proficiency, Government of Punjab embarked
on a collaborative effort with the British Council in 2023. A pilot project involved 5,000
government college students with a focus on enhancing English language skills by conducting
an intensive 18-session course spanning six months. This initiative focused on equipping
students with the necessary linguistic abilities to thrive in an increasingly globalized world.
9.4.2 Karnataka: English Skills for Youth
The Government of Karnataka launched four programmes in 2024, aimed at advancing higher
education, enhancing language proficiency, and improving employability for students while
fostering their seamless transition into the workforce. The ‘English Skills for Youth’ programme,
in partnership with Microsoft India, targeted 5,795 students across 16 government engineering
colleges, enhancing their English proficiency and workplace readiness through blended
learning modules. The initiatives included the ‘Scholars for Outstanding Undergraduate
Talent (SCOUT)’ programme which offered international exposure through a two-week
immersive learning experience at the University of East London for deserving students
from six universities, focusing on UNSDGs, critical thinking, and innovation. Additionally,
the Capacity Building for International Officers programme supported internationalisation
efforts in 28 universities, and the Freemium Digital Library Wall at Bengaluru City University
which expanded access to digital learning resources. 105Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1I. FUNDING AND FINANCING
A. Government Funding
Figure 7.6: Recommendations for Government Funding
1. Ensure NEP Recommended Allocation: Allocate at least 6% of GDP towards education,
following recommendations from various commissions such as the Kothari Commission in 1964
to NEP in 2020. (NEP Clause: 26.1, 26.2) (NIRF Clause: 1D)
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Increase Central and State Government’s allocation towards education, aiming to reach
the NEP-recommended 6% of GDP.
1.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»State Governments
1.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Track increase in budget allocation to higher education as a % of GDP. 106Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1.4 State Good Practices
1.4.1 Uttar Pradesh: Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Incentive Policy 2024
The Policy aimed at elevating the state’s academic landscape by attracting top private,
foreign, and high-ranking Indian universities to underserved districts. The policy provided
substantial financial incentives, including stamp duty exemptions and capital subsidies, to
institutions establishing Multidisciplinary Educational and Research Universities (MERUs)
in unserved areas, with enhanced benefits for those investing in Aspirational Districts. By
offering a 20% capital subsidy capped at `100 crore and full stamp duty exemptions to
globally ranked foreign universities and top NIRF-ranked Indian institutions, the policy
fostered educational equity, encouraged global academic collaboration, and enhanced local
opportunities. This approach has the potential to create hubs for academic excellence,
aligning with national goals while driving regional development.
2. Strengthen Existing SPUs: Prioritize the strengthening of existing SPUs. This approach
can ensure optimal utilization of resources and focus on enhancing the quality of education and
research outputs.
2.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Prioritize allocating resources to strengthen existing SPUs.
2.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»State Governments
2.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Dedicated % of financial resources to be allocated for infrastructure development
projects, faculty recruitment, and other investments in existing SPUs.
3. Provide Increased Grants: SPUs may be provided increased government grants to adequately
cover operational expenses and drive infrastructural investments.
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Analyze funding gaps of existing SPUs and allocate increased grants to address immediate
needs and operational expenses. Ensure timely release of allocated funds for smooth
financial functioning.
3.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»State Governments 107Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
3.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Dedicated % of government grants to be allocated to SPUs.
4. Allocate Sufficient Resources to Newly Established SPUs: Committed resources may be
allocated to newly established SPUs for the initial 8 to 10 years of operation.
4.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Provide dedicated funding for newly established universities during their initial years of
operation.
4.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
4.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Dedicated funding earmarked and regularly released for newly established SPUs during
their first decade of operation.
5. Review and Reform Funding and Financing Models: Government authorities may review
funding models to ensure equitable distribution of resources and address SPUs’ financial needs.
5.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Conduct a comprehensive review of existing funding and financing models for SPUs.
» Develop a new funding model based on a combination of factors like student enrolment,
faculty strength, and research output.
5.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»State Governments
5.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Dedicated funding to ensure equitable distribution of resources to SPUs.
6. Establish Infrastructure Finance Agency: States may consider establishing a finance agency
similar to the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA), dedicated specifically to SPUs. This
agency should focus on bolstering infrastructure and research facilities, thereby enabling SPUs to
compete nationally and globally. 108Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
6.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Establish a dedicated infrastructure finance agency specifically for SPUs. This agency
should focus on providing loans and grants for infrastructure development, state-of-the-
art research facilities, and student, scholar, and faculty accommodation.
6.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
6.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Establishment of a dedicated finance agency specifically for SPUs for providing loans and
grants for infrastructure development and research facilities.
6.4 Central Government Initiative
6.4.1 Revitalising Infrastructure and Systems in Education (RISE) under HEFA
The Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) was established in May 2017 as a joint
venture between the Ministry of Education, Government of India, and Canara Bank. It was
set up to provide financing for the creation of capital assets such as setting up research
labs and academic blocks, libraries and auditoriums, sports facilities and smart classrooms,
student hostels and faculty/staff residences, to create state-of-the art infrastructure that
fosters learning and innovation in premier educational institutions like IITs, NITs, and IISERs
across India. To support the RISE initiative launched in 2018, HEFA’s scope was expanded
to include Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, and educational institutions under the
Ministry of Health. The goal was to improve academic and infrastructure quality, enabling
these institutions to achieve global rankings. Initially set with an authorized capital of `2,000
crores, HEFA’s capital was expanded in 2018 to `10,000 crores, with the Government
contributing `6,000 crores. As of 31
st
December 2024, HEFA had sanctioned `43,000 crores
and disbursed over `21,590 crores to 106 HEIs.
7. Ensure Process Efficiency in Disbursal of Funding and Scholarships: Ensure timely
funding allocations and disbursal of student fellowships and scholarships to meet immediate needs
and foster sustainable growth.
7.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Ensure timely release of allocated funds and disbursal of student fellowships and
scholarships for smooth financial functioning.
7.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government 109Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»State Governments
7.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Regularly monitoring the timeliness of fund disbursement to SPUs and disbursement
of fellowships and scholarships to students by tracking the duration between budget
approval and actual fund allocation/scholarship disbursal.
7.4 Central Government Initiative
7.4.1 PM-Vidyalaxmi
The scheme was approved in 2024 to support meritorious students by providing financial
assistance for quality higher education. It offered collateral free, guarantor free education
loans for students admitted to the top 860 HEIs across India, benefiting over 22 lakh students
each year. With budget allocation of `3,600 crore from 2024-25 to 2030-31, the scheme
aimed to assist an additional 7 lakh students with an annual family income of up to `8 lakhs
and not having eligibility for benefits under any other government scholarship or interest
subvention schemes. Implemented through a fully digital, transparent, and student-centric
platform, PM-Vidyalaxmi ensured easy access and smooth interoperability for students
nationwide. The Department of Higher Education has built a unified portal “PM-Vidyalaxmi”
on which students will be able to apply for the education loan as well as interest subvention,
through a simplified application process to be used by all banks where payment of interest
subvention will be made through E-voucher and CBDC wallets.
8. Conduct Evaluations of RUSA (PM-USHA) Beneficiaries: Conducting evaluations
of Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) beneficiaries and scrutinizing the utilization of
its funds is essential for ensuring accountability and effectiveness in resource utilization. These
evaluations can assess the impact of RUSA initiatives on SPUs, identify areas for improvement, and
optimize resource allocation to enhance the quality and accessibility of higher education.
8.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Conduct audits and evaluations of existing RUSA (PM-USHA) projects in SPUs.
Identify areas where RUSA funds were effectively utilized and where improvements are
needed.
»Based on the evaluation results, recommend adjustments to PM-USHA guidelines and
resource allocation strategies.
8.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
8.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Periodic audits and evaluations of existing RUSA projects in SPUs. 110Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
B. Diversification of Revenue Sources
Figure 7.7: Recommendations for Diversification of Revenue Sources
1. Expand Self-Financed Programmes: Encourage SPUs to expand self-financed programmes
to generate additional revenue streams.
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Conduct market research to identify areas of high demand for specialized courses.
»Develop and launch self-financed programmes in these areas, catering to industry needs
and professional skill development. Ensure high-quality standards for self-financed
programmes to maintain student enrolment and reputation.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
»Analyze the performance and profitability of self-financed programmes.
»Continuously update curriculum and course offerings to maintain relevance and attract
students for UG, PG, and mid-career programmes.
»Explore offering online or blended learning formats for self-financed programmes to
reach a wider audience. 111Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1.2 Actors Responsible
»State Government
»State Councils for Higher Education
»SPUs
1.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Increase in number of self-financed programmes offered by SPUs.
2. Promote Consultancy Services: Leverage Leading SPUs’ expertise to offer consultancy
services to industries and government agencies.
2.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Establish dedicated consultancy units within Leading SPUs to connect faculty expertise
with industry and government needs.
» Develop a database of faculty expertise and research capabilities across various
disciplines.
» Proactively market consultancy services to potential clients through industry outreach
programmes.
2.2 Actors Responsible
»Leading SPUs
2.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Establishment of consultancy units within Leading SPUs.
3. Encourage Alumni Engagement:
Encourage development of robust alumni engagement
programmes within SPUs to encourage financial contributions and support.
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Conduct outreach programmes to reconnect with alumni and build a strong alumni network.
»Establish online alumni portals for communication, career mentoring, and fundraising
opportunities.
»Explore creating alumni chapters and associations in every major country/region to
foster a sense of community and encourage financial contributions. 112Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
3.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
3.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Increase in participation and engagement of alumni in the SPU.
»Increase in financial contribution and support from alumni.
3.4 State Good Practices
3.4.1 Odisha: “Mo College” initiative
The Government of Odisha’s “Mo College” initiative aimed to transform the state’s higher
education landscape by engaging alumni. The state allocated an initial budget of `2 crores for
the campaigning and branding of this programme to ensure that resources are available for
institutional development. As part of this initiative, the government issued clear guidelines
for colleges and universities to actively involve alumni in contributing financial resources,
mentorship, and expertise to improve infrastructure, provide scholarships, and promote
research. It also acted as a platform for the alumni to offer their services on a voluntary
basis for the betterment of the college ecosystem.
4. Leverage CSR Funds: Encourage mobilization of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds
towards higher education and research sectors, ensuring contributions for R&D activities in SPUs
and state research institutes.
4.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Partner with industry bodies and encourage mobilization of CSR funds towards R&D
infrastructure in SPUs.
» Develop clear proposals outlining the research/infrastructure project’s objectives,
potential impact, and how it aligns with the CSR priorities of the target companies.
» Establish dedicated teams within universities to manage and report on CSR-funded projects.
4.2 Actors Responsible
»Central Government
»SPUs
4.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Increase in the engagement of SPUs with corporate partners to promote CSR funding
for higher education and research activities. 113Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
5. Explore Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): Explore innovative funding models and PPPs
to supplement government funding and support initiatives aimed at enhancing employability.
5.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Develop innovative PPP models for infrastructure development, research collaboration,
and skill development programmes.
» Develop clear legal frameworks and transparent partnership structures to ensure
accountability and mutual benefit.
5.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»SPUs
5.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Undertaking PPP opportunities for infrastructure development, research collaboration,
and skill development programmes by SPUs. 114Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
C. Fee Autonomy (Pilot Mode Test)
Figure 7.8: Recommendation for Fee Autonomy
Important Caveats:
• The decision to grant fee autonomy is complex and requires careful consideration of its potential
impact on various stakeholders.
• Concerns regarding affordability and potential exclusion of underprivileged students from higher
education must be addressed.
• Alternative funding mechanisms, such as scholarships and financial aid programmes, should be
strengthened alongside any fee autonomy initiatives.
1. Enhance Antonomy in Financial Decision Making
1A. Support Decentralized Decision-Making and Autonomy: Support increased
autonomy in financial decision-making in SPUs to explore innovative funding and financing models.
1 B. Grant Autonomy to Increase Fees: Grant SPUs the autonomy for inflation-adjusted fees
within reasonable limits (e.g., around 5-10% annually) to meet various expenditure requirements,
while providing scholarships and fee waivers for the socio-economically disadvantaged students.
This flexibility can help address financial challenges and maintain operational efficiency. (NEP Clause
18.14)
1.1 Implementation Roadmap:
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Identify a group of Leading SPUs with strong financial management practices to pilot a
programme with limited fee autonomy.
»Establish clear guidelines for fee adjustments within the pilot programme, considering
factors like inflation, programme costs, and student affordability.
»Monitor the pilot programme closely to assess its impact on university finances, student
enrolment, and educational quality. 115Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Implement a reasonable fee structure with merit-cum-means scholarships.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
»Analyze the results of the pilot programme on fee autonomy, considering both financial
and educational outcomes.
»Based on the evaluation, determine the effectiveness of fee flexibility in addressing
financial challenges and maintaining quality education.
»Refine the fee autonomy framework based on the pilot’s learnings, considering potential
adjustments to eligibility criteria, fee adjustment limits, or transparency measures. If the
pilot programme proves successful, consider expanding fee autonomy to a wider range
of SPUs with robust financial management and transparency systems.
1.2 Actors Responsible:
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
1.3 Performance Success Indicator:
»Implementation of reasonable fee structure with merit-cum-means scholarships for
need-blind admissions.
»Implementation of the pilot programme on fee autonomy. 116Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
D. Taxation and Utility Payments
Figure 7.9: Recommendations for Taxation and Utility Payments
1. Support Tax Exemptions: Support tax exemptions for SPUs operating on self-sustaining
models, particularly for revenue from CSR grants and educational and research activities.
1.1 Implementation Roadmap:
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Implement policy changes at the State and Central Government levels to grant tax
exemptions on revenue from CSR grants and educational and research activities.
1.2 Actors Responsible:
»Central Government
»State Governments
1.3 Performance Success Indicator:
»Implementation of enabling tax exemptions.
2. Review Utility Rates:
Review and adjust commercial rates for utilities like water and electricity
to reduce operational costs in SPUs.
2.1 Implementation Roadmap:
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Conduct a comprehensive analysis of current utility bills for SPUs. Identify areas where
commercial rates are applied to essential utilities like water and electricity. 117Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Negotiate with utility providers for special discounted rates or establish separate
categories for educational institutions, especially SPUs.
2.2 Actors Responsible:
»State Governments
2.3 Performance Success Indicator:
»Appropriate exemption(s) for utility rates for water and electricity for all SPUs in place. 118Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
III. GOVERNANCE
A. Improving Governance and Autonomy
Figure 7.10: Recommendations for Improving Governance and Autonomy
1. Enhance Administrative Autonomy of Universities: Adopt a ‘regulatory-facilitator
model’ where the State Government provides enhanced autonomy to SPUs. Reform governance
structures through transformative acts and policies to grant SPUs greater administrative autonomy
while maintaining transparency and accountability. (NEP Clause: 18.4, 19.2)
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Enable a shift towards a ‘regulatory-facilitator’ model for SPUs and implement policy
changes at the State Government level to grant SPUs greater autonomy in areas like
curriculum development, faculty recruitment, and financial management.
» Establish clear guidelines and performance indicators to ensure universities exercise
autonomy responsibly and transparently.
1.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
1.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Implementation of transformative acts and policies along with detailed guidelines and
performance indicators aimed at reforming governance structures to provide SPUs
with greater administrative autonomy. 119Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1.4 State Good Practices
1.4.1 Gujarat: Public Universities Act 2023
The Government of Gujarat spearheaded the Public Universities Act, aimed at revolutionizing
governance and autonomy within SPUs. This Act which came into effect on October 9, 2023,
sought to overhaul the governance structure of SPUs by adopting a management process
akin to that of prestigious institutions like IITs and IIMs for appointing vice-chancellors.
By eliminating previous impediments to professional management, the Act promised to
usher in a new era of efficiency and effectiveness. Central to this transformation was the
abolition of traditional bodies such as the Senate and Syndicate, with a renewed emphasis
on orientation, professionalization, and standardization. Furthermore, the Act granted full
autonomy to SPUs, with minimal interference from Principal Secretaries and Secretaries
in governance matters. However, the State retained the prerogative to intervene in cases
where the quality of education was compromised.
2. Ensure Effective Governance of Universities: Establish Management and Academic Councils
for effective governance. Implement integrated management systems to ensure transparency and
accountability in decision-making processes. Outline transparent processes for rule amendments
in SPUs. (NEP Clause: 19.5)
2.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Establish effective Management and Academic Councils with clearly defined roles and
responsibilities.
» Develop and implement integrated management systems to promote transparency and
accountability in financial and administrative processes.
» Model Act in every state for all SPUs to offer ease of governance may be drafted and
released.
2.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
2.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Preparation of Model Act for all SPUs to offer ease of governance.
» Establishment of Management and Academic Councils within SPUs to facilitate effective
governance.
» Implementation of integrated management systems in all SPUs.
3. Empower State Councils for Higher Education (SCHE): Empower SCHEs to sanction
posts and allocate funds instead of the State Government. 120Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Empower SCHE to have greater control over sanctioning posts and allocating funds to
SPUs. Facilitate SCHE to take forward the initiatives of UGC in the state.
3.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»UGC
3.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Empowerment of SCHE for sanctioning posts and allocating funds to SPUs.
4. Facilitate communication and collaboration between State Technical and Higher
Education Departments: Facilitate communication and collaboration between State Technical
and Higher Education Departments to optimize resources and streamline initiatives.
4.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Establish mechanisms for regular communication and collaboration between Technical
and Higher Education Departments of the State Governments.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Develop joint initiatives to optimize resource allocation, streamline approvals for
new courses and programmes, and ensure alignment between Technical and Higher
Education Departments of State Governments.
4.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
4.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Establishment of formal communication channels between State Technical and Higher
Education Departments.
»Implementation of joint initiatives to optimize resource allocation.
5. Formulate State-level Higher Education Vision: Support the formulation of State-level
Higher Education Vision and Policies to cater to the specific needs of SPUs within each State. This
policy should be tailored to address the unique educational requirements, rather than adopting
a generalized approach. Encourage states to develop micro visions of policies to ensure effective
evaluation of quality metrics and promote targeted initiatives for educational enhancement. 121Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
5.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Each state to develop a unique Higher Education Vision and Policy framework through
SCHE by consultative process with stakeholders (universities, industry, policymakers).
This framework should consider the specific needs and priorities of SPUs within the
states. NITI Aayog and the State Institutions for Transformation (SITs) established on
the lines of NITI Aayog may be knowledge collaborators in this process.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Develop micro-level policy frameworks for individual universities based on the overall
state-level vision.
5.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»State Institutions for Transformation (State NITI Aayog)
»NITI Aayog
5.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Creation of State-level Higher Education Vision and Policy Framework and
Implementation Roadmap.
» Creation of SPU-level policy frameworks in alignment with overall State-level Vision.
6. Ensure Representation of Diverse Stateholders in SPU Administration
6A. Increase participation of Academicians and Alumni in University Administration:
Ensure increased participation of academicians in SPU administration. (NEP Clause: 19.4)
6B. Adequate Representation to Humanities disciplines in decision-making: Ensure
inclusion of academicians from Humanities disciplines in decision-making processes.
6.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Increase representation of academicians and alumni in decision-making bodies of
university administration.
» Ensure inclusion of academicians from Humanities disciplines besides STEM areas in
decision-making processes and providing values- based education. 122Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
6.2 Actors Responsible
»UGC
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»SPUs
6.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Adequate representation from Humanities disciplines in decision-making processes.
7. Reform Accreditation Process
7A. Localize Accreditation and Assessment: Support the development of localized
accreditation and assessment frameworks that align with India’s unique needs and priorities.
Encourage the establishment of quality benchmarks based on local, national, and global requirements
to ensure relevance and effectiveness in evaluating the performance of SPUs. (NIRF Clause: 5A)
7A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Implement localized accreditation and assessment frameworks for SPUs and their
affiliated colleges considering local needs, industry requirements, and national priorities
while maintaining global relevance.
7A.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»UGC/ AICTE
»NAAC/ NBA
7A.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Creation and implementation of localized accreditation and assessment frameworks for
SPUs and their affiliated colleges.
7B. Restructure Accreditation Fees: Support restructuring of accreditation fees to make the
process more accessible and affordable for colleges.
7B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Restructure accreditation fees to make the accreditation process more affordable for
Aspirational SPUs and their affiliated colleges.
»Provide mentoring/handholding support to new and Aspirational SPUs. 123Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
7B.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»UGC/AICTE
»NAAC/NBA
7B.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Affordability of accreditation fees for SPUs.
»Handholding support extended to new and Aspirational SPUs.
8. Streamline Affiliation Process: Support the streamlining of the affiliation process by regulatory
bodies, reduce delays in course sanctioning, and provide clarity on de-affiliation procedures. (NEP
Clause: 10.12)
8.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Enable regulatory bodies to streamline the affiliation process, reduce delays in course
approvals, and establish clear de-affiliation procedures for SPUs and their affiliated colleges.
» Create a roadmap for de-affiliation of high potential affiliated colleges while ensuring
adequate and one-time compensation to SPUs for loss of affiliation fees.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Implement roadmap for de-affiliating high potential affiliating colleges and creating
autonomous degree granting institutions or cluster universities.
8.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
8.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Number of colleges de-affiliated
»Number of autonomous degree granting institutions and cluster universities created
9. Grant Syllabus Autonomy: Regulatory bodies like AICTE/PCI/BCI/NCTE should grant
autonomy to SPUs to upgrade/change syllabi by at least 30% to incorporate local/regional/state
needs, avoiding contradictions with ranking/grading organisations like NAAC/NIRF. (NEP Clause:
11.6, 12.2, 13.3) 124Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
9.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Grant autonomy to SPUs to update and modify syllabi to address local needs, avoiding
contradictions with ranking /grading organisations like NAAC/NIRF.
9.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
9.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Grant of autonomy to SPUs to update and modify syllabi upto 30%.
10. Support Reforms in Approval Process: Grant autonomy to SPUs to transfer vacant seats
to other branches or open new specializations while maintaining the total number of sanctioned
seats. Streamline approval processes by regulatory bodies to prevent delays in admissions and ensure
timely commencement of academic sessions. Accord approval to universities and government
colleges for a period of 5 years at a stretch to eliminate the need for yearly approval for renewal
and streamline administrative processes. (NEP Clause: 10.12)
10.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Grant flexibility to SPUs with respect to admissions, seat transfer, and course approval
processes.
10.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
10.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Grant of flexibility to SPUs with respect to admissions, seat transfer, and course approval
processes.
11. Facilitate Credit Transfer: Establish committees to streamline educational systems and
facilitate credit transfers between universities. (RUSA/PM USHA Mapping Chapter 6: Activities
under Components of PM USHA, S.No. 2) (NEP Clause: 11.7)
11.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Streamline credit transfer procedures between SPUs through Academic Bank of Credits,
ensuring clarity and consistency in the credit evaluation. 125Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
11.2 Actors Responsible
» Ministry of Education
»UGC
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»SPUs
11.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Streamlined credit transfer procedures between universities.
11.4 Central Government Initiative
11.4.1 Academic Bank of Credits (ABC) and the National Credit Framework
(NCrF)
Launched on May 11, 2023, NCrF was a comprehensive system introduced under NEP 2020
to integrate academic learning with vocational and experiential education. It facilitated the
accumulation and transfer of credits earned through various learning avenues, promoting
multidisciplinary education and lifelong learning. This framework empowered students
to tailor their educational journeys by enabling seamless mobility between general and
vocational education streams. As of January 2025, over 2,300 universities and HEIs had
registered with the Academic Bank of Credit, a digital storehouse that contained the
information of the credits earned by individual students throughout their learning journey
which was launched in July 2021. The framework’s integration of vocational courses and
internships ensured that students gained practical skills alongside theoretical knowledge,
preparing them for the dynamic demands of the modern workforce. 126Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
B. Recruitment and Capacity Building of Faculty and Administrators
Figure 7.11: Recommendations for Recruitment and Capacity Building of Faculty and Administrators
FACULTY
1. Reform Faculty Recruitment System
1A. Streamline Faculty Recruitment: Simplify recruitment processes by reducing bureaucratic
hurdles and expediting administrative approvals for faculty appointments. (NEP Clause: 13.6)
1A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Review and simplify faculty recruitment processes and expedite approval timelines.
» Develop online application portals and e-verification systems to streamline application
processing.
» Establish dedicated recruitment committees with clear timelines and a merit-based
selection process.
1A.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Government
»State Councils for Higher Education 127Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1A.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Establishment of dedicated faculty recruitment committees.
» Development of online application portals and e-verification systems to streamline
recruitment.
» Assessment of the efficiency of the faculty recruitment process by tracking the time
taken from job advertisement to appointment.
1B. Prioritize Recruitment of Full-time Faculty Members: Prioritize the recruitment of
full-time faculty members in SPUs to ensure stability and continuity within the academic workforce.
Full-time faculty members are better positioned to contribute to research activities and provide
mentorship to students, thereby fostering a culture of academic excellence within SPUs. (NEP
Clause: 13.1, 13.6)
1B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Finalize recruitment rules to address staff shortages and streamline the hiring process
in SPUs.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Prioritize the recruitment of full-time faculty members in SPUs to ensure stability and
continuity within the academic workforce.
1B.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»SPUs
1B.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Increase in the proportion of full-time faculty members across all SPUs.
2. Explore a Centralized Recruitment Model: A centralized recruitment model rather
than individual universities handling recruitment exercises, can streamline the hiring process.
This approach can enhance efficiency and transparency in faculty recruitment, ensuring merit-
based selections and reducing administrative burdens associated with decentralized recruitment
processes. (NEP Clause: 13.6)
2.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Create a centralised recruitment model for faculty positions across SPUs in the state,
ensuring merit-based selection and fair opportunities for candidates. 128Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
»Implement a centralized recruitment model for faculty positions across SPUs.
2.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»State Council for Higher Education
2.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Implementation of a centralized recruitment model for faculty positions across SPUs.
3. Augment Faculty Capacity: Developing special training programmes aimed at enhancing
faculty proficiency in conducting online classes is crucial. Implement capacity-building programmes,
including workshops and induction programmes to enhance the skills of faculty. These programmes
should provide faculty members with training and support to effectively leverage digital tools and
platforms for teaching and learning. By equipping faculty with the necessary skills and resources,
SPUs can ensure that they are well-prepared to deliver quality digital education that meets the
needs of students in today’s rapidly evolving educational landscape. (NEP Clause: 24.3)
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Develop and offer capacity-building programmes for faculty members focusing on
teaching methodologies, curriculum development, and effective use of technology;
partner with educational technology companies or online learning platforms to provide
training on utilizing digital tools for online teaching.
3.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»Capacity Building Commission
»AIU
3.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Development and delivery of training programmes covering topics such as online
pedagogy, use of digital tools and platforms, effective communication in virtual
environments, and student engagement strategies. 129Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
4. Streamline Faculty Managment in SPUs
4A. Review Faculty Evaluation Criteria:
There is a critical need to align faculty expectations
with evaluation criteria to foster a harmonious and productive academic environment. Clear and
transparent evaluation criteria can help faculty members understand the expectations for career
advancement and contribute to a supportive and equitable workplace culture. (NEP Clause: 13.6)
4A.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Review faculty evaluation criteria to ensure alignment with university goals and
expectations.
»Clearly communicate performance expectations to faculty members and provide them
with opportunities for professional development to meet those expectations.
4A.2 Actors Responsible
»SPU
4A.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Enhanced avenues for professional development of faculty members.
4B. Implement Faculty Workload Management: Addressing and optimizing faculty workload
is crucial for providing the necessary time and space for meaningful engagement in research
activities. Balancing teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities can ensure that faculty
members dedicate sufficient time to conduct high-quality research and contribute effectively to
their academic disciplines. (NEP Clause: 13.3)
4B.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Analyze and adjust faculty workloads to ensure sufficient time for research and scholarly
activities in addition to teaching responsibilities.
»Develop workload management policies that prioritize a healthy work-life balance for
faculty members.
4B.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
4B.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Implementation of workload management policies to optimize faculty workload.
4C. Optimize Faculty Resources: Optimize faculty resources through equivalence committees
to address workforce challenges effectively. 130Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
4C.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Conduct a comprehensive assessment of faculty expertise and current utilization.
» Identify underutilized faculty and potential areas for redeployment; restructuring of
departments or programmes, if needed, to create suitable roles for redeployed faculty.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Optimize faculty resources by establishing Equivalence Committees to assess faculty
members’ transferability across related disciplines (e.g., production engineering to
mechanical engineering); and after restructuring and training, redeployment of the
faculty members. (This initiative can improve resource utilization, faculty engagement,
and the overall education quality.)
4C.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
4C.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Functional Equivalence Committees tasked with assessing and recognizing faculty
qualifications, experience, and contributions.
ADMININSTRATORS
5. Revamp Composition of Governing Councils: Compose Governing Councils with top
quality academicians, researchers, and administrators, excluding political members. (NEP Clause
19.2, 19.4)
5.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Revise the composition of Governing Councils to include a majority of academicians,
researchers, alumni, and administrators, with minimal or no political appointees.
5.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Government
»State Councils for Higher Education
»SPUs
5.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Composition of Governing Councils of all SPUs with top quality members. 131Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
6. Ensure Statutory Provisions for Deans: Statutory provisions should be made for the posts
of Dean (Academic), Dean (College Development Council), and Dean (Research) in every SPU to
enhance academic and research leadership and governance. (NEP Clause: 13.7)
6.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Make statutory provisions for creating Dean positions (Academic, College Development
Council, Research).
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
»Fill the statutorily created Dean positions.
6.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»SPUs
6.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Increase in number of SPUs with the set positions.
7. Promote Administrative Appointments from Teaching Fraternity: Registrars, Finance
Officers, and Examination Controllers should be appointed from the teaching fraternity to ensure
a visionary approach and better understanding of academic requirements. (NEP Clause: 19.4)
7.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (2-5 Years)
» Promote Appointments of Registrars, Finance Officers, and Examination Controllers
from Teaching fraternity.
7.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Government
7.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Increase in the proportion of Registrars, Finance Officers, and Examination Controllers
appointed from the teaching fraternity.
8. Implement Capacity Building Initiatives for Vice Chancellors and Administrators:
Implement capacity-building initiatives aimed at enhancing the skills and capabilities of Vice
Chancellors and administrators. Offer training programmes, workshops, and seminars focused
on areas such as leadership development, research methodologies, pedagogical innovations, and 132Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
emerging trends in higher education. By investing in the professional development of academic
leaders and administrators, universities can better meet the evolving demands of contemporary
academia. (NEP Clause: 13.7)
8.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Conduct leadership development programmes for Vice-Chancellors and administrators
focusing on strategic planning, resource management, and fostering a positive academic
environment.
» Launch training programmes for administrators on topics like communication skills,
financial management, student support services, alumni outreach, industry collaboration,
and application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in university processes.
8.2 Actors Responsible
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»Capacity Building Commission
8.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Annual delivery of leadership development programmes tailored for Vice-Chancellors
and administrators.
8.4 State Good Practices
Maharashtra: State Faculty Development Academy
The Academy was established in 2021 as a registered Section 8 Company, to enhance faculty
capabilities to serve as catalysts for transformation within the higher education sector. This
initiative extended beyond traditional faculty training by also engaging academic leaders such
as Registrars, Pro-Vice Chancellors, and Vice Chancellors, empowering them to navigate
emerging challenges in higher education effectively. By January 2025, over 12,000 participants
across 1,692 colleges and 57 programmes in Maharashtra, with 36 collaborators benefitted. 133Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
IV. EMPLOYABILITY
A. Skilling and Employability Enhancement for Students across
Streams
Figure 7.12: Recommendations for Skilling and Employability Enhancement for Students across Streams
1. Enhance Employability Focus through Internships and Apprenticeships: Integrate
employability-focused initiatives into SPU policies and practices, emphasizing practical skills, self-
learning, and lifelong learning. Implement internship and apprenticeship programmes as integral,
mandatory components of the curriculum, providing students with hands-on experience and
exposure to the world of work. Create internship opportunities within the state to encourage
local talent retention and economic growth. (RUSA/PM USHA Mapping Chapter 6: Activities under
Components of PM USHA, S.No. 9) (NEP Clause: 16.7,17.8)(NIRF Clause: 2D)
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Review and revise SPU curricula to integrate employability-focused modules.
» Develop learning outcomes that emphasize practical skills, problem-solving abilities, and
communication skills. Internships or apprenticeships to be made mandatory as part of
the curriculum, ensuring proper credit and guidance.
» Establish dedicated “Internship Banks” within SPUs to connect students with internship
opportunities. Leverage internship opportunities promoted by UGC/AICTE platforms.
Partner with local industries, businesses, government agencies, and NGOs to create
internship placements.
» Explore collaboration with Sector Skill Councils to develop apprenticeship programmes
that bridge the gap between education and industry needs. 134Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
1.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»Sector Skill Councils
»Industry Bodies
1.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Revision of curricula to integrate employability-focused modules.
» Creation of “Internship Banks” within SPUs to connect students with internship
opportunities.
» Implementation of Apprenticeship-embedded programmes in collaboration with Sector
Skill Councils.
1.4 Central Government Initiative
1.4.1 PM Internship Scheme
Launched on October 3, 2024, the scheme aimed to provide 1 crore internships over five
years to enhance employability and skill development among Indian youth. The scheme’s
objective was to equip young individuals aged 21-24 years with real-world experience and
professional skills through structured internships across 24 diverse sectors, including energy,
banking, and hospitality. Beneficiaries included candidates with ITI certificates, polytechnic
diplomas, or undergraduate degrees (e.g., BA, B.Sc, B.Com), as well as those pursuing online
or distance education. Financial assistance under the scheme included a monthly stipend
of `5,000, with `4,500 provided by the government via Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) and
`500 contributed by partner companies, along with a one-time joining grant of `6,000.
Interns were insured under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana and Pradhan Mantri
Suraksha Bima Yojana, with premiums paid by the Central Government. The pilot phase for
2024-25 targeted 1.25 lakh internships, funded as part of the Union Budget 2024-25, which
allocated `1.48 lakh crore towards education, employment, and skill development.
1.4.2 National Apprenticeship Training Scheme
The scheme was launched by the Ministry of Education and has been implemented through
the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (as amended from time to time) and The
Apprenticeship Rules, 1992 (as amended from time to time). The basic objective of the scheme
was to bridge the gap, if any, in the practical/hands-on experience of fresh Graduate Engineers
and Diploma holders, and enhance their technical skills for making them industry ready. The
scope of NATS was expanded to include students from Humanities, Science and Commerce
streams, besides students from the Engineering stream. On July 30
th
, 2024, the government
launched NATS 2.0 portal, a one-stop solution integrating enrollment, certification, and 135Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) payments. Implemented through four Regional Boards of
Apprenticeship Training, the scheme provided practical training opportunities across sectors
including IT/ITES, manufacturing, automobile, and BFSI. With a robust budget of `3,054 crore
allocated for FY 2021-22 to 2025-26, the scheme aimed to bridge the industry-academia
gap. Apprentices received stipends through DBT, with 50% reimbursement to employers
from the government. Union Budget 2025 increased the allocation for the scheme by nearly
50% to `1,178 crores for FY 2025-26.
1.5 State Good Practices
1.5.1 Telangana: Telangana Academy for Skill and Knowledge (TASK)
TASK was started in 2014 as a not-for-profit organisation by the Government of Telangana
to bridge the gap between industry, academia, and government by offering quality human
resources and services. TASK provided significant value to students by offering modules
for enhancing technological, personal, and organisational skills at highly subsidized rates. It
also supported colleges by fostering environments for growth through faculty development,
research pilots, and systematic quality education programmes. For corporates, TASK
delivered access to a skilled talent pool trained in cutting-edge technologies, facilitating their
recruitment needs efficiently. In the last decade, the Academy has benefitted 761 colleges,
skilled 9.84 lakh students and 18,650 faculty, partnered with 80 industries and provided over
35,000 placements.
1.5.2 Andhra Pradesh: India’s First Skill Census
In January 2025, the Andhra Pradesh Government in collaboration with Infosys, embarked
on India’s first-ever Skill Census to assess the competencies of 3.5 crore individuals in the
working-age population across the state. Spanning 1.8 crore households, this project focused
on individuals aged 15 to 59 years, aiming to map their skills and aligning them with the
needs of various industries. Infosys was leveraging Generative AI to assist in recording and
analyzing the skill sets of participants. This census would enhance employment opportunities
by identifying skill gaps and offering targeted technical assistance to empower the workforce.
2. Implement Schemes to Support Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Implement policies
or schemes to support entrepreneurship and innovation, encouraging students to develop and
pursue innovative ideas and become job creators. (NEP Clause: 11.12)
2.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Implement schemes or programmes to provide financial and mentoring support to
student entrepreneurs.
»Organize business plan competitions and innovation workshops within SPUs.
»Attract alumni entrepreneurs to handhold high potential student and faculty
entrepreneurs. 136Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Encourage industry mentorship for student and faculty-led entrepreneurship ideas with
high potential for commercialisation.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
»Establish incubation centres or co-working spaces to support student-led start-ups.
2.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
»Industry Bodies
2.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Implementation of schemes to support entrepreneurship and innovation in all SPUs.
3. Focus on Language Training: Invest in language training programmes and initiatives to
improve employability within the state, thereby reducing the outflow of youth. Establish Language
Labs in SPUs. (NEP Clause: 22.4)(NIRF Clause: 1F)
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
»Invest in developing and launching language proficiency programmes for students.
»Establish language labs in SPUs equipped with necessary resources and technology.
»Integrate language training modules within existing curricula or offer them as elective
courses.
3.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
3.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Establishment of language labs in every SPU.
4. Create Lifelong Education Centres: Allocate financial resources for establishing lifelong
education centres in SPUs to promote upskilling and reskilling across disciplines. (NEP Clause:
10.10)
4.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
»Allocate resources for establishing Lifelong Learning Centres within SPU. 137Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
4.2 Actors Responsible
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»SPUs
4.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Establishment of Lifelong Learning Centres in every SPU.
5. Integrate Physical Education and Student Wellness: Ensure student wellness through
fitness, good health, psycho-social well-being, and ethical grounding for high-quality learning,
especially in the face of the growing obesity pandemic among the younger generation. (NEP Clause
12.1)
5.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0–2 Years)
» Introduce mandatory physical education and wellness courses as part of the
undergraduate curriculum, focusing on fitness, mental well-being, and ethical grounding
to enhance Emotional Intelligence.
» Establish dedicated wellness centres in all SPUs equipped with gym facilities, yoga spaces,
and mental health support services.
» Conduct annual health and fitness assessments for students and faculty, tracking key
health indicators such as BMI, endurance, and mental wellness.
» Promote the importance of physical activity through fitness challenges, and inter-
university sports competitions.
Medium-Term (3–5 Years)
» Develop and implement a one-year diploma in physical fitness for individuals aspiring to
become gym trainers, ensuring a standardized approach to fitness education.
» Establish collaborations between SPUs and sports organisations to provide hands-on
training, internships, and mentorship opportunities in fitness and wellness.
» Ensure that every SPU has trained professionals such as fitness and nutrition advisors,
physiotherapists, and mental health counselors available for students.
Long-Term (5+ Years)
» Institutionalize physical education as a fundamental component of holistic student
development, making participation in structured fitness programmes a credit
requirement. 138Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»Establish national accreditation for physical education programmes and fitness trainers
to ensure quality standards in fitness education.
5.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»UGC
»Ministry of Education
»Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»Sports and Fitness Organisations
5.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Percentage of HEIs implementing structured physical education and wellness
programmes.
»Student participation rates in fitness and wellness programmes.
»Number of students enrolled in physical fitness diploma courses.
»Number of partnerships between HEIs and sports/fitness and holistic wellness
organisations. 139Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
B. Academia-Industry Collaboration
Figure 7.13: Recommendations for Academia-Industry Collaboration
1. Strengthen University-Industry Collaboration through Joint Projects: Encourage MoU
with industry associations, and facilitate collaborative research and consultancy projects. Establish
an Industry Relations Cell (IRC) within the SPU to liaison with industry hubs, local industries, and
IRCs of other universities in the cluster. (NEP Clause: 20.6) NIRF Clause: 2D).
1.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Establish an IRC within each SPU to act as a central liaison point with industry partners.
Staff the IRC with dedicated personnel responsible for identifying industry needs,
facilitating collaborations, and managing communication channels.
» Develop a database of potential industry partners, focusing on local companies and
industry associations within the state.
» Utilize existing industry associations platforms like CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM to connect
with industry partners for collaborative opportunities.
» Develop and sign MoUs with industry partners outlining areas for collaboration, such
as joint research and consultancy projects or internship programmes.
1.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship
»Ministry of Education
»AIU
»CII/FICCI/ASSOCHAM and other Industry Bodies 140Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
»SPUs
»State Governments
1.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Establishment of Industry Relations Cell (IRC) in every SPU.
»Increase in active MoUs/collaborative research and consultancy projects with industry
partners in every SPU.
1.4 Central Government Initiative
1.4.1 Future Skills Prime
Launched in 2018 as a joint initiative by Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
(MeitY) and NASSCOM, it aimed to create an upskilling /reskilling ecosystem in 10 emerging
technologies, such as AI, IOT, blockchain, 3D printing, AR/VR, cyber security, and cloud
computing to facilitate continuous enhancement of skills of IT professionals in line with their
aspirations and aptitude. The pan-India network of C-DAC & NIELIT Centres was leveraged
to extend the reach of this programme in smaller towns and remote locations through
blended-learning programmes. It also provided an opportunity for training Government
officials, specially the technical/scientific cadres, and making them familiar with the nuances
of emerging technologies through industry-curated courses. As of January 2025, the platform
had over 20 lakh registered users and nearly 9 lakh enrolments. The initiative established 13
state government partnerships, collaborated with 2,000+ academic institutions, and engaged
over 160 corporates with courses that aligned with the National Occupational Standards
(NOS) and the National Skills Qualification Framework (NSQF). FutureSkills Prime was
ranked third among 47 digital skilling initiatives globally in the European Commission’s 2024
Pact for Skills Report.
1.5 State Good Practices
1.5.1 Gujarat: Skills4Future Programme
The Gujarat Knowledge Society (Commissionerate of Technical Education, Gujarat), in
collaboration with the Edunet Foundation, launched the Skills4Future Programme in 2024, to
equip the state’s youth with future-ready skills. Supported by Shell India, this initiative aimed to
transform technical education in Gujarat by addressing critical skills gaps and equipping engineering
students with expertise in cutting-edge technologies essential for driving the Industry 4.0
revolution. The programme aimed to train 10,000 students in primary skills and 2,500 students in
advanced technologies annually. As part of this initiative, Digital and Electric Vehicle (EV) Training
Labs would be established in select engineering colleges. These labs, supported by Shell India’s
CSR initiative, would serve as centres for experiential learning, hosting hackathons, innovation
contests, and advanced training sessions. The programme’s curriculum, aligned with the Gujarat
Knowledge Society’s credit-based framework, included a 50-hour Foundation Course and a 160-
hour Advanced Course, with a strong emphasis on hands-on applications in AI, sustainability, and
cleaner technologies. 141Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
2. Promote Professor of Practice Appointments: Promote Professor of Practice
appointments to bridge the academia-industry gap, leveraging industry expertise in curriculum
development and delivery. (NEP Clause: 20.6)
2.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Encourage appointment of Professors of Practice in all relevant programmes.
2.2 Actors Responsible
»SPUs
»State Governments
»Industry Bodies
2.3 Performance Success Indicator
»Dedicated funding for appointment of Professors of Practice in SPUs.
»Increase in the number of Professors of Practice appointed in SPUs.
3. Encourage Industry Skills Programmes and Certifications: Encourage corporate
partners to provide professional certifications to students, enhancing their marketability and
employability. Integrate Vocational Education with relevant programmes. Collaborate with industry
stakeholders to provide soft skills training to improve employability. (NEP Clause: 16.5, 16.6, 20.6)
3.1 Implementation Roadmap
Short-Term (0-2 Years)
» Collaborate with industry partners to identify relevant industry certifications and
training programmes valuable for students’ future careers.
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Encourage corporate partners and industry bodies to provide professional certifications
to students, enhancing their marketability and employability.
» Collaborate with industry stakeholders to provide soft skills training to improve
employability.
3.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship
»CII/FICCI/NASSCOM and other Industry Bodies
»SPUs
»State Governments 142Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
3.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Increase in number of Industry Skills Programmes and Professional Certifications
offered in every SPU.
4. Promote Faculty Autonomy to Design Industry-Relevant Curriculum: Encourage
faculty autonomy in curriculum design and revision, allowing for timely updates and alignment with
industry needs. Foster collaboration between academia and industry to identify emerging trends
and incorporate relevant content into the curriculum, promoting agility and relevance. (NEP Clause:
12.2)
4.1 Implementation Roadmap
Medium-Term (2-5 Years)
» Establish mechanisms for regular curriculum reviews and updates, incorporating
feedback from industry partners and alumni.
» Develop and implement processes for incorporating emerging industry trends and
technological advancements into the curriculum to ensure its continued relevance.
4.2 Actors Responsible
»Ministry of Education
»All Regulatory Bodies
»State Governments
»State Councils for Higher Education
»SPUs
4.3 Performance Success Indicator
» Creation of a pre-defined framework for faculty autonomy in curriculum design and
revision. 143Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
University of Mysore, Karnataka 144Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Chapter-1
• Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2022). All India
Survey on Higher Education (2021-22).
• Dora, D. R. (2024, August 10). Indians flying high in Silicon Valley. Destination: C-Suite. The
Economic Times.
• Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020.
• Lowe, R., & Yasuhara, Y. (2016). The origins of higher learning: Knowledge networks and the
early development of universities. Routledge.
• Randolph, S. (2023, May 15). India’s links to Silicon Valley grow. The Times of India.
• Sarkar Committee. (1945). Report of the Sarkar Committee on Education. Government of
India.
• Scharfe, H., Bronkhorst, J., Spuler, B., & Altenmüller, H. (2002). Handbuch der Orientalistik: India.
Education in Ancient India. Brill.
Chapter-2
• Borthakur, P., Nath, S. K., & Chakraborty, S. (2024). Higher Education Landscape in India:
Government Expenditure and Its Implications on Growth and Access. Space and Culture India,
12(1), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v12i1.1422
• Government of India. (1953). Report of the Secondary Education Commission. Ministry of
Education.
• Government of India. (1966). Education Commission (Kothari Commission) Report. Ministry
of Education.
• Government of India. (1986). National Policy on Education. Ministry of Human Resource
Development.
• Government of India. (1992). Program of Action. Ministry of Human Resource Development.
• Government of India. (2011). All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2011-12.
• Government of India. (2016). All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2016-17.
• Government of India. (2013). Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan: National Higher Education
Mission. Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
• Government of India. (2023). All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2021-22.
REFERENCES 145Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
• Naik, J. P. (1947). Report on the Educational System. Government of India.
• National Knowledge Commission. (2009). Report to the Nation. Government of India.
• University Education Commission. (1948-49). Report of the University Education Commission.
Government of India.
• Yash Pal Committee. (2009). Report of ‘The Committee to Advise on Renovation and
Rejuvenation of Higher Education’. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government
of India.
Chapter-3 and Chapter-4
• Bose, S., Noopur, & Nayudu, A. S. H. (2022). Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers and Expenditure
on Education in India: State Level Analysis, 2005 to 2020 (No. 377). Retrieved from https://
www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2022/03/WP_377_2022.pdf
• Government of India. (2012). All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2011-12. Ministry
of Education. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/
AISHE2011-12.pdf
• Government of India. (2017). All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2016-17. Ministry
of Education. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics-new/
AISHE2016-17.pdf
• Government of India. (2024). All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2021-22.
Ministry of Education. https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s392049debbe566ca5782a3045cf300a3c/
uploads/2024/02/20240719952688509.pdf
• Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2017). India Rankings 2017: National Institutional
Ranking Framework Report. https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfpdfcdn/2017/IR2017_Report.pdf
• Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2024). India Rankings 2024: National Institutional
Ranking Framework Report. https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfpdfcdn/2024/pdf/Report/IR2024_
Report.pdf
• Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2022). Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on
Education 2018-19 to 2020-21. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/
statistics-new/budget_exp.pdf
• Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. (2016). India Rankings 2016:
National Institutional Ranking Framework Report. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.
in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/nirf_booklet_FINAL_02_04_16_01-00PM_0.pdf
• Mittal, P. (2022). Restoring India’s status as Vishwaguru. In P. Mittal, & S. R. Pani, Implementing
National Education Policy-2020: A roadmap 146Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
• National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). (2023). NAAC Accreditation Report
2023. Retrieved from https://naac.gov.in
• Pai, T. V. M., Moorti, R. K., & Sridhar, K. (2015). Higher Education: The Role of Private Sector. In
H. Chaturvedi (Ed.), Transforming Indian Higher Education (pp. 140–158). Bloomsbury Publishing
India Pvt. Ltd.
• Powar, K. B. (2015). The Role, Present Status, Changing Scenario and Future of Indian Higher
Education. In H. Chaturvedi (Ed.), Transforming Indian Higher Education (pp. 34–69). Bloomsbury
Publishing India Pvt. Ltd.
• Rao, K. S., & Singh, M. K. (2015). History of University Education in India: Way Forward. In H.
Chaturvedi (Ed.), Transforming Indian Higher Education (pp. 1–33). Bloomsbury Publishing India
Pvt. Ltd.
• Singh, R. (2015). Indian Higher Education and Research Ecosystem: Directions to a World Class
Knowledge Nation. In H. Chaturvedi (Ed.), Transforming Indian Higher Education (pp. 106–139).
Bloomsbury Publishing India Pvt. Ltd.
• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2022). World
Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/
desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). International Standard Classification of Education.
ISCED 2011. Retrieved from https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-
standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (n.d.). UIS Database. Retrieved from https://data.uis.unesco.org/
retrieved on November 19, 2024
• UNESCO Institute of Statistics & World Bank. (2020). Government expenditure on tertiary
education per capita. Retrieved from https://data.uis.unesco.org and https://data.worldbank.org
• Varghese, N. V. (2022). Implications for planning for implementation in Higher education. In P.
Mittal, & S. R. Pani, Implementing National Education Policy-2020 A roadmap .
• World Economic Forum. (2018). The Future of Jobs Report 2018. Retrieved from https://www.
weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2018
Webliography
• https://www.ugc.gov.in/Aboutus/Genesis retrieved on September 2, 2024
• https://www.nirfindia.org/Home/About retrieved on August 28, 2024
• https://www.education.gov.in/central-universities-0 retrieved on August 29, 2024
• http://naac.gov.in/index.php/en/ retrieved on September 10, 2024
• https://iic.mic.gov.in/ retrieved on November 19, 2024 147Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
ANNEXURE-1
CONSULTATIONS WITH STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
NameDesignation and State
1. Shri Priyatu Mandal, IAS
Secretary (Technical Education)
Govt. of Himachal Pradesh
2. Ms. Tanu Kashyap, IAS
Secretary (Higher Education)
Govt. of Punjab
3. Shri S.R. Umashankar, IAS
Additional Chief Secretary
Department of Higher Education
Govt. of Karnataka
3A. Shri Jagadeesha G., IAS
Commissioner
Department of Collegiate and Technical Education
Govt. of Karnataka
4. Shri Vikaschandra Rastogi, IAS
Principal Secretary
Higher & Technical Education Department
Govt. of Maharashtra
5. Shri Mahendra Prasad Agrawal, IAS
Principal Secretary, Higher Education Dept.
Govt. of Uttar Pradesh
5A Shri Girijesh Tyagi, IAS
Special Secretary (Higher Education)
Govt. of Uttar Pradesh
6. Shri Mukesh Kumar, IAS
Principal Secretary (Higher & Technical Education)
Govt. of Gujarat
6A. Shri M. Nagarajan, IAS
Director (Higher Education)
Govt. of Gujarat
7. Thiru A. Karthik, IAS
Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department
Govt. of Tamil Nadu
8. Shri Shailesh Bagauli, IAS
Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education
Govt. of Uttarakhand
9. Shri Baidyanath Yadav, IAS
Secretary, Education
Govt. of Bihar
10. Ms. V. Karuna, IAS
Secretary, Department of Education
Govt. of Telangana
11. Shri A. Ch. Marak, IAS
Secretary, Education
Govt. of Meghalaya
12. Sri Rahul Kumar Purwar, IAS
Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical
Education
Govt. of Jharkhand 148Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
NameDesignation and State
13. Dr. Krishan Kumar Kataria
Director, Technical Education
Govt. of Haryana
13A. Ms. Minakshi Raj
Additional Director, Higher Education
Govt. of Haryana
13B. Shri R. S. Sangwan
Joint Director, Technical Education
Govt. of Haryana
13C. Shri K.K. Agnihotri
Adviser, Haryana State Higher Education Council
Govt. of Haryana
14. Shri Sudhir K., IAS
Director of Collegiate Education
Govt. of Kerala
14A. Dr. Jagan Sebastian
Nodal Officer, RUSA
Govt. of Kerala
15. Dr. Anindita Ganguly
Director, Technical Education
Govt. of West Bengal
16. Dr. Dhirendra Shukla
OSD, Higher Education Dept.
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
17. (Prof.) Dr. Yasmeen Ashai
Director, Colleges
Higher Education Department
UT of Jammu & Kashmir
18. Ms. Padma Angmo, IIS
Commissioner/Secretary
Higher Education Department
UT of Ladakh
18A. Dr. Sameena Iqbal
Director, Colleges
UT of Ladakh
18B. Shri Imteeaz Kacho
Additional Secretary, Higher Education Department
UT of Ladakh
19. Ms. Alice Vaz, IAS
Secretary, Higher and Technical Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
20. Shri Aman Sharma
Director, Higher & Technical Education
UT of Puducherry
21. Dr. Manpreet Singh
Jt. Director, Technical Education
UT of Chandigarh 149Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
ANNEXURE-2
CONSULTATIONS WITH VICE CHANCELLORS
& SENIOR ACADEMICS OF STATE PUBLIC
UNIVERSITIES
Name of the Vice Chancellor
/ Participant
Name of University City, State
(State/UT alphabetical
order)
1. Prof. K. Raja Reddy
Vice Chancellor
Sri Venkateswara University
Tirupati,
Andhra Pradesh
2. Prof R. C. Deka
Vice Chancellor
Cotton University
Guwahati,
Assam
3. Prof. Harsh Nayyar
Director, R&D Cell
Panjab University UT of Chandigarh
4. Prof. Ramesh K. Goyal
Vice Chancellor
Delhi Pharmaceutical
Sciences and Research
University
Delhi
5. Prof. Anu Singh Lather
Vice Chancellor
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar UniversityDelhi
6. Shri Nitin Malik
Registrar
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar UniversityDelhi
7. Dr. Richa Awasthi
Associate Professor
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar UniversityDelhi
8. Dr. Selvin Paul
Associate Professor
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar UniversityDelhi
9. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev
Vice Chancellor
Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical
University for Women
Delhi
10. Prof. Poonam Bansal
Professor
Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical
University for Women
Delhi
11. Prof. (Dr.) Mahesh Verma
Vice Chancellor
Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University
Delhi
12. Dr. Gagan Deep Sharma
Associate Professor
Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University
Delhi
13. Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai
Vice Chancellor
National Law UniversityDelhi
14. Dr Neerja A Gupta
Vice Chancellor
Gujarat University Ahmedabad, Gujarat
15. Prof. (Dr.) Jabali J. Vora
Vice Chancellor
Hemchandracharya North
Gujarat University
Patan, Gujarat 150Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Name of the Vice Chancellor
/ Participant
Name of University City, State
(State/UT alphabetical
order)
16. Prof. Kirit Lad
Coordinator, IQAC
Sardar Patel UniversityAnand, Gujarat
17. Prof. Sudesh
Vice Chancellor
Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila
Vishwavidyalaya
Sonipat, Haryana
18. Dr. Pardeep Kumar
Director, Distance Education
Kurukshetra UniversityThanesar, Haryana
19. Dr. Shree Prakash Singh
Vice Chancellor
Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram
University of Science and
Technology
Sonipat, Haryana
20. Prof. B. R. Kamboj
Vice Chancellor
Chaudhary Charan Singh
Haryana Agriculture
University
Hisar,
Haryana
21. Prof. Shashi Kumar Dhiman
Vice Chancellor
Himachal Pradesh Technical
University
Sasan,
Himachal Pradesh
22. Prof. Rajeshwar Singh Chandel
Vice Chancellor
Dr Y.S. Parmar University of
Horticulture and Forestry
Solan,
Himachal Pradesh
23. Prof. Nilofer Khan
Vice Chancellor
University of Kashmir
Srinagar,
UT of Jammu & Kashmir
24. Farooq Masoodi
Dean (Academic Affairs)
University of Kashmir
Srinagar,
UT of Jammu & Kashmir
25. Dr. Jayakar S.M.
Vice Chancellor
Bangalore University Bengaluru, Karnataka
26. Prof Dayanand Agsar
Vice Chancellor
Gulbarga University Kalaburagi, Karnataka
27. Prof. N.K. Loknath
Vice Chancellor
University of Mysore Mysuru, Karnataka
28. Prof. Sharanappa V Halse
Vice Chancellor
Karnataka State Open
University
Mysuru, Karnataka
29. Prof. (Dr). Mohanan
Kunnammal
Vice Chancellor
University of Kerala
Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala
30. Dr. Sunil Kumar Gupta
Vice Chancellor
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki
Vishwavidyalaya
Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh
31. Prof Satyendra Kishor Mishra,
Dean of Social Sciences
Vikram University
Ujjain,
Madhya Pradesh 151Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Name of the Vice Chancellor
/ Participant
Name of University City, State
(State/UT alphabetical
order)
32. Prof. Kapil Deo Mishra
Vice Chancellor
Rani Durgavati
Vishwavidyalaya
Jabalpur,
Madhya Pradesh
33. Dr. Renu Jain
Vice Chancellor
Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya
Indore,
Madhya Pradesh
34. Dr. Suresh Gosavi
Vice Chancellor
Savitribai Phule Pune
University
Pune,
Maharashtra
35. Prof. Ravindra Kulkarni
Vice Chancellor
University of Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra
36. Dr Laishram Jimmy
Assistant Professor
Manipur Technical University
Takyelpat,
Manipur
37. Prof Sabita Acharya
Vice Chancellor
Utkal University Bhubaneswar, Odisha
38. Prof. Sarabjot Singh Behl
former Dean, Academic Affairs
Guru Nanak Dev University
Amritsar,
Punjab
39. Lt. Gen. Jagbir Singh Cheema
Vice Chancellor
Maharaja Bhupinder Singh
Punjab Sports University
Patiala,
Punjab
40. Prof. (Dr.) Harpreet Kaur
Vice Chancellor
National Law University
Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
41. Prof. Sudhi Rajiv
Vice Chancellor
Haridev Joshi University
of Journalism and Mass
Communication
Jaipur,
Rajasthan
42. Prof. R. Jagannathan
Vice Chancellor
Periyar University
Salem,
Tamil Nadu
43. Prof. Aruna B. Venkat
Associate Professor
NALSAR University of LawHyderabad, Telangana
44. Prof. Alok Kumar Rai
Vice Chancellor
University of Lucknow
Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh
45. Prof. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi
Director, College Development
Council
Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj
University
Kanpur,
Uttar Pradesh
46. Prof N P Melkania
Dean, Academic
Gautam Buddha University
Greater Noida, Uttar
Pradesh
47. Prof. Arun Kumar Tripathi
Uttarakhand Ayurved
University
Dehradun, Uttarakhand
48. Prof. Pijushkanti Panigrahi
Library & Information Science
University of CalcuttaKolkata, West Bengal
49. Prof. Buddhadeb Sau
Vice Chancellor
Jadavpur University Kolkata, West Bengal 152Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities
Name DesignationInstitution
1. Shri Suman Bery Vice ChairmanNITI Aayog
2. Dr. Vijay Kumar SaraswatMemberNITI Aayog
3. Dr. Vinod Kumar Paul MemberNITI Aayog
4. Prof. M. Jagadesh KumarChairman University Grants Commission
5. Prof. G.D. Sharma President Association of Indian Universities
6. Dr. (Mrs.) Pankaj Mittal Secretary GeneralAssociation of Indian Universities
7. Prof. R. Limbadri Chairman Telangana State Higher Education Council
8. Prof. K. Hemachandra
Reddy
Chairman
Andhra Pradesh State Higher Education
Council
9. Prof. Dinesh Singh Vice Chairman
Jammu & Kashmir Higher Education
Council
10. Prof. Asoka Das Vice Chairman Odisha State Higher Education Council
11. Prof. V. Venkata RamanaVice ChairmanTelangana State Higher Education Council
12 Prof. Kailash Chandra
Sharma
Vice ChairmanHaryana State Higher Education Council
13. Ms. Rina Sonowal Kouli,
IIS
Joint Secretary
Department of Higher Education,
Government of India
ANNEXURE-3
CONSULTATIONS WITH DIGNITARIES
(During National Conference) National Conference on ‘Expanding Quality Higher Education through State Pubic
Universities’, organised by NITI Aayog in New Delhi on November 2, 2023 NOTES 156Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities

Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities: Policy Report