IN THE YEAR 2016

(1)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁸⁹

AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF RANKING

CONDUCTED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL RANKING FRAMEWORK (NIRF) OF MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOR

DIFFERENT CATEGORY-A INSTITUTES OF HIGHER & TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN INDIA

IN THE YEAR 2016

Bipin R. Bankar^#, Kumar B. Pawar^*, Sanjay T. Dandele^#

#JSPM’s Jayawant Institute of Management Studies, Tathawade, Pune, India

1bipinbankar2009@gmail.com, ²pawarkumarb@gmail.com, ³sanjay.dandele@gmail.com Abstract—The purpose of the present study was to analyze the

ranking conducted for 300 different institutes. These institutes comprise Engineering, Management, Pharmacy and Universities.

The ranking was conducted by the NIRF of ministry of HRD in the year 2016. The ranking data was collected from NIRF portal.

To satisfy the objectives of the study hypothesis were framed and tested with the help of two way Anova test. From the present study, it was concluded that there has been significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter set by ranking framework among different Universities, Engineering, Management and Pharmacy Institutes in India. The ranking initiative taken by HRD ministry is good move. Through this ranking the competition among different institutes may increase for improving their overall ranking and improve their quality and standards in education. The increased in quality and standards will help Indian institutes to compete with international education standards. The outcome of this ranking paper indicates the performance of the top universities, technical institutes and their area of improvement.

Keywords: HRD, NIRF, Two - way Anova, Ranking parameter, quality.

I. INTRODUCTION

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has been approved by the Ministry of Human Resource development (MHRD) of India. The main purpose of this framework is to outline a methodology to Rank Higher and Technical Institutes and Universities across the country. The ranking methodology and broad parameters have been identified by the core committee set up by the MHRD for ranking. The

ranking parameters or indicator are broadly covers

‘Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR)’,

‘Research Professional Practices & Collaborative Performances (RPC), ‘Graduation Outcomes’ (GO),

‘Outreach and Inclusivity’ (OI) and ‘Perception’.

Therefore, the ranking methodologies are domain specific. The NIRF has been classified institutes under six domains namely Engineering, Management, Pharmacy, Architecture, Universities and Colleges. Further, the Institutes have been classified as Category - A Institutes and Category - B Institutes. The Institutes has been registered under Category A is Research & Teaching Institutes and Category B is Teaching Institutes only.

The five parameters have 100 marks each.

Therefore, the total ranking of parameters is for 500 marks. These parameters are India centric and include regional & international diversity, outreach, gender equality and inclusion of disadvantaged sections of society i.e. SC, ST, and OBC etc.

Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) is related to the core activities of learning. Assessment marks for this parameter was 100 & ranking weightage was 0.30. This parameter was further assessed into different metrics. They were Faculty Student Ratio with emphasis on permanent faculty (FSR), Combined Metric for faculty with Ph.D. &

Experience (FQE), Metrics for Library facilities

(2)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹⁰

(LI), Metrics for Sports & Extra Curricular Facilities (SEC) and Metrics for Teaching &

Innovation (TI).

Research, Professional Practice & Collaborative Performance (RPC) parameter was assessed for 100 marks & ranking weightage was also 0.30. This parameter was also assessed into different metrics namely combined metrics for publications, combined metrics for citations, percentage of collaborative publications and footprint of executive education & professional practice.

Graduation Outcome (GO) parameter was also assessed for 100 marks & ranking weight is 0.15.

This indictor was also assessed into different metrics such as outreach footprint (Continuing Education, Services), percentage of students from other states/countries, percentage of woman students & faculty, percentage of economically &

socially disadvantaged students and facilities for physically challenged or differently Abled persons.

Finally Perception (PR) parameter was also used for ranking. With the help of perception parameter, feedback from different stakeholders has been obtained. The feedback has been taken from peer groups and general public. Peer groups include eminent persons from academia, industry R&D institutes and Research & Development institutes and other government organizations. Further, general public includes students, parents and employers etc. The online feedback has been taken by NIRF.

II.OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To analyze the ranking conducted by NIRF for different Category- A Institutes of India.

2. To study the different ranking parameter consider for ranking by NIRF.

3. To find out the significant difference of ranking among different parameter between different institutes.

III.REVIEW OF LITERATURE

B.M. Gupta (2010) conducted a study on Ranking and performance of Indian Universities,

based on publication and citation data. In his study he focused on new methodology of ranking of top 50 productive Indian universities using publications, citations and international collaborative publication data. The factors affecting productivity and quality of research in Indian universities were identified. The study also indicates the various methods employed for ranking universities.

B. K. Sahoo, R. Singh, B. Mishrac, K. Sankaran (2015) has conducted a study on Research Productivity in Management Schools of India: A Directional Benefit-of-Doubt Model Analysis. They examined overall research productivity of the schools and the faculty members during the 1968- 2014. They put four key findings. First, the relative weights of the journal tier, total citations, impact factor, author h-index, number of papers, and journal h-index varied from high to low in order for estimating the CI of a faculty member. Second, both public and private schools were similar in research productivity. However, faculty members at the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) outperformed those at the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs).

Third, faculty members who had their doctoral degrees from foreign, relative to Indian, schools were more productive. Among those trained in India, alumni of IITs, compared to those of IIMs, were more productive. Finally, IIMs at Ahmadabad and Bangalore and the Indian School of Business, Hyderabad have seemingly more superstars than other schools among the top 5% researchers during 2004-2014.

V T, Bagalkoti, S. L. Sangam (2012) conducted a study on Ranking of NACC Accredited Indian Universities. They examines the India’s performance publication based on its output in Science and Technology during 2001-2010 identifies the international collaboration and, h- index and the National Assessment and Accreditation council grade (NAAC) of top 50 productive universities. The study uses 10 years publications data from Scopus international multidisciplinary bibliographical database, The 50 universities contributed 1,08,666 papers and

(3)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹¹

received 3,36,027 citations during 2001-10, with the average citation per paper as.3.09. The study also indicates the various criteria’s for ranking universities.

IV. SOURCES OF DATA

The purpose of present study was to analyze the ranking of Category- A institutes of different disciplines of higher and technical institutes of India.

Table 1: Distribution of sample size of registered institutes under NIRF

(Source: - https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfbookletfinal)

The present study was based on the Secondary data source. The ranking institute’s data has been collected from NIRF portal.

V.SELECTION OF SAMPLE

The total 1438 Engineering Institutes, 609 Management Institutes, 454 Pharmacy Institutes and 233 Universities of India have been participated in the ranking process initiated by the NIRF.

The distribution of sample size of different institutes and total population or universe is as above. These Institutes have been registered and submitted ranking data online to the NIRF portal.

The present study has taken into consideration the Group- A category institutes only i.e. Teaching &

Research Institutes because the NIRF has given ranking to these institutes in the year 2016. Out of 314 Engineering institutes, 100 has been ranked, Out of 142 Management Institutes, 50 has been ranked, Out of 173 Pharmacy institutes, 50 has been ranked and Out of 233 Universities, 100 has been ranked by the NIRF. Therefore, this study is analyzing the ranking of Category- A Institutes of different disciplines such as Engineering, Management, Pharmacy & Indian Universities.

VI. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The purpose of present study was to analyze the ranking of total 300 institutes comprising Engineering, Management, Pharmacy and Universities. In case of Engineering and Universities disciplines, 100 Engineering institutes and 100 Universities respectively has been ranked.

In Management and Pharmacy disciplines, 50 Management institutes and 50 Pharmacy institutes respectively have given ranking. These institutes come under category of Teaching and Research Institutes. Therefore, the scope of the present study is limited to the ‘Category- A’ Institutes and different disciplines such as Engineering, Management, Pharmacy and Universities only.

Further, the analysis of the present study is confined only to these disciplines. The analysis of the present study was done on the basis of framed hypothesis.

In the year 2016, NIRF has not given ranking to Category B institutes namely Teaching Institutes only and Architecture institutes. Hence this limitation is applicable to the present study.

VII. FRAMING OF HYPOTHESIS

1. There is no significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Engineering Institutes of India.

2. There is no significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Universities of India.

3. There is no significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Management institutes of India.

4. There is no significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Pharmacy institutes of India.

Sr.

No.

Disciplines Total Numbers

Category A (N)

Sample Size (S)

1 Engineering 1438 314 100

2 Management 609 142 50

3 Pharmacy 454 173 50

4 University 233 --- 100

Total 2734 629 300

(4)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹²

VIII. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Analysis was done with the help of the statistical tools such as two - way Anova.

Table 2: Top Twenty Engineering Institutes as per different parameter Sr.

No.

Name of Institutes Overall Rank

TLR RPC GO OI PR

1 Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras

1 2 2 8 1 2

2 Indian Institute Of Technology, Bombay

2 4 1 5 7 1

3 Indian Institute Of Technology, Kharagpur

3 10 4 6 4 5

4 Indian Institute Of Technology, Delhi

4 7 5 16 13 3

5 Indian Institute Of Technology, Kanpur

5 14 3 4 10 4

6 Indian Institute Of Technology, Roorkee

6 12 7 9 6 6

7 Indian Institute Of Technology, Hyderabad

7 9 12 13 16 9

8 Indian Institute Of Technology, Gandhinagar

8 6 18 20 9 7

9 Indian Institute Of Technology, Ropar

9 1 17 3 17 20

10 Indian Institute Of Technology, Patna

10 8 20 17 12 11

11 Indian Institute Of

Technology, North Guwahati

11 11 11 18 14 10

12 National Institute Of Technology, Tiruchirappalli

12 19 10 10 3 12

13 Vellore Institute Of Technology, Vellore

13 13 15 15 5 13

14 Indian Institute Of Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi

14 17 9 1 18 8

15 Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute Of Technology

15 18 6 14 11 16

16 Indian Institute Of Technology, Indore

16 3 13 2 20 18

17 Birla Institute Of Technology, Ranchi

17 20 8 7 15 14

18 Visvesvaraya National Institute Of Technology, Nagpur

18 16 16 19 2 15

19 National Institute Of Technology, Rourkela

19 15 14 11 8 17

20 Indian Institute Of Technology, Mandi

20 5 19 12 19 19

(Source: - https://www.nirfindia.org)

It is evident from the table no. 2 that, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) - Madras, has occupied first position(1st Rank) in overall ranking followed by IIT- Bombay(2^nd Rank), IIT- Kharagpur(3^rd Rank), IIT- Delhi(4^th Rank), IIT- Kanpur(5^th Rank), IIT- Roorkee,(6^th Rank), IIT- Hyderabad(7^th Rank), IIT- Gandhinagar (8^th Rank), IIT- Ropar(9^th Rank), IIT-Patna(10^th Rank), IIT-

North Guwahati(11^th Rank), National Institute- Tiruchirappalli (12^th Rank), IIT-Varanasi (14^th rank), Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute (15^th Rank), IIT-Indore (16^th Rank), Birla Institute – Ranchi (17^th Rank), Visvesvaraya National Institute- Nagpur (18^th Rank), National Institute of Technology, Rourkela (19^th Rank) and IIT- Mandi has occupied 20^th Position amongst the various engineering Institutes.

Table 3: Top Twenty Universities as per different parameter Sr.

No. Institutes

Overall Rank TLR RPC GO OI PR

1 Indian Institute Of Science, Bangalore

1 2 2 1 13 1

2 Institute Of Chemical Technology, Mumbai

2 7 1 14 17 6

3 Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

3 4 8 2 10 3

4 University Of Hyderabad- Hyderabad

4 11 3 18 1 4

5 Tezpur University, Tezpur 5 8 5 17 6 13 6 University Of Delhi, Delhi 6 15 4 12 3 5 7 Banaras Hindu University,

Varanasi

7 14 10 15 2 2

8 Indian Institute Of Space Science And Technology, Thiruvananthapuram

8 3 17 3 12 10

9 Birla Institute Of Technology & Science - Pilani

9 5 14 4 20 8

10 Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

10 16 7 19 16 14

11 Visva Bharati, Kolkata 11 18 13 5 5 12

12 Punjab University, Chandigarh

12 19 6 20 7 7

13 Pondicherry University, Pondicherry

13 13 12 13 18 16

14 Bharathiar University, Coimbatore

14 20 11 6 4 15

15 North Eastern Hill University, Shillong

15 9 19 7 11 11

16 King Georges Medical University-Lucknow

16 10 16 16 15 17

17 Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai

17 1 20 8 14 9

18 Jamia Hamdard-New Delhi 18 6 9 9 19 20

19 Amrita Vishwa

Vidyapeetham-Coimbatore

19 12 18 10 9 18

20 Goa University-Goa 20 17 15 11 8 19

(Source: - https://www.nirfindia.org)

It is also evident from the table no. 3 that, In case of Top twenty Universities, Indian Institute of

(5)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹³

Science - Bangalore, has occupied first position (1^st Rank) in overall ranking followed by Institute Of Chemical Technology-Mumbai (2^nd Rank), Jawaharlal Nehru University- New Delhi(3^rd Rank), University Of Hyderabad-Hyderabad(4^th Rank),Tezpur University-Tezpur(5^th Rank), University Of Delhi-Delhi(6^th Rank), Banaras Hindu University-Varanasi(7^th Rank), Indian Institute Of Space Science And Technology- Thiruvananthapuram(8^thRank), Birla Institute Of Technology & Science-Pilani(9^thRank), Aligarh Muslim University-Aligarh(10^th Rank),Visva Bharati-Kolkata (11^thrank),

Punjab University- Chandigarh (12^th Rank), Pondicherry University- Pondicherry (13^th Rank), Bharathiar University- Coimbatore (14^th Rank), North Eastern Hill University- Shillong (15^th Rank), King Georges Medical University-Lucknow (16^th Rank), Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai (17^th Rank), Jamia Hamdard-New Delhi (18^th Rank), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham-Coimbatore (19^th Rank) and Goa University-Goa has occupied 20^th position amongst the various Universities of India.

Table 4: Top Ten Management Institutes as per different parameter Sr.

No. Institutes

Over all Rank TLR RPC GO OI PR

1 Indian Institute Of Management, Bangaluru

1 1 1 1 1 4

2 Indian Institute Of Management, Ahmadabad

2 4 4 2 2 1

3 Indian Institute Of Management, Calcutta

3 6 2 3 4 5

4 Indian Institute Of Management, Lucknow

4 7 7 4 3 2

5 Indian Institute Of Management, Udaipur

5 8 5 5 6 7

6 Indian Institute Of Management, Kozhikode

6 9 6 6 5 6

7 International Management Institute-New Delhi

7 5 9 8 9 8

8 Indian Institute Of Forest Management

8 3 10 9 8 9

9 Indian Institute Of Technology, Kanpur

9 2 3 10 10 10

10 Indian Institute Of Management, Indore

10 10 8 7 7 3

(Source: - https://www.nirfindia.org)

It is found from the above table that, in case of Top Ten Management Institutes, Indian Institute of Management- Bangaluru has occupied first

position (1^st Rank) in overall ranking followed by Indian Institute of Management- Ahmadabad(2^nd Rank), Indian Institute Of Management-Calcutta(3^rd Rank), Indian Institute of Management- Lucknow (4^th Rank), Indian Institute of Management- Udaipur(5^th Rank), Indian Institute Of Management- Kozhikode(6^th Rank), International Management Institute-New Delhi (7^th Rank), Indian Institute Of Forest Management (8^th Rank), Indian Institute Of Technology, Kanpur (9^th Rank) and Indian Institute Of Management- Indore has occupied 10^th position (10^th Rank) amongst the various management institutes of India.

Table 5: Top Ten Pharmacy Institutes as per different parameter Sr.

No. Institutes

Overall Rank TLR RPC GO OI PR

1

Manipal College Of Pharmaceutical

Sciences-Manipal 1 1 8 2 5 5

2

University Institute Of Pharmaceutical Sciences- Chandigarh

2 2 1 7 8 6

3 Jamia Hamdard,

New Delhi 3 3 2 5 9 8

4

Poona College Of Pharmacy,

Erandwane, Pune 4 8 3 8 3 1

5

Institute Of Pharmacy, Nirma

University 5 6 6 3 2 7

6

Bombay College Of Pharmacy- Mumbai

6 7 4 6 7 2

7

Birla Institute Of Technology, Ranchi

7 5 7 4 10 3

8 Amrita School Of

Pharmacy, Kochi 8 4 9 1 6 10

9

JSS College Of Pharmacy, Tamil

Nadu 9 10 5 10 1 9

10

JSS College Of Pharmacy, Mysore,

Karnataka 10 9 10 9 4 4

(Source: - https://www.nirfindia.org)

It is also found from the above table that, in case of Top Ten Pharmacy Institutes, Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences-Manipal has occupied first position (1^st Rank) in the overall

(6)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹⁴

ranking of pharmacy institutes followed by University Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences- Chandigarh (2^nd Rank), Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi (3^rd Rank), Poona College Of Pharmacy, Erandwane- Pune (4^th Rank), Institute Of Pharmacy- Nirma University (5^th Rank), Bombay College Of Pharmacy-Mumbai(6^th Rank), Birla Institute Of Technology- Ranchi(7^th Rank), Amrita School of Pharmacy – Kochi (8^th Rank), JSS College Of Pharmacy- Tamil Nadu(9^th Rank) and JSS College Of Pharmacy, Mysore- Karnataka has occupied 10^th Position (10^th Rank) amongst the different pharmaceutical institutes of India.

IX. HYPOTHESIS TESTING

1. IN CASE OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTES:

H₀: There is no significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Engineering Institutes of India.

H1: There is significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Engineering Institutes of India.

Table 6: ANOVA

Source of Variations

Sum of Square

D.

F.

Mean Squares

F Calculated

Value F table value

@ 5%

Sign.

level

Decision

Between

Institutes 67792.91 99 684.78 3.15 1 H0 is rejected Between

Parameters 23113.38 4 5778.3 26.55 2.37 H0 is rejected

Residual 86174.68 396 217.61

Total 177081

(Source: - Anova Calculation)

It has been evident from the above table that, for comparison between different institutes, F calculated value is 3.15 which is more than the F table value at 5% significant level which is 1.

Hence, Null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there is significant difference in the ranking score obtained by different engineering institutes is

different. Further, In case of comparison between different parameters, F calculated value is 26.55 which is also more than F table value at 5%

significant level which is 2.37. Therefore, null hypothesis is also rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is concluded that there is also significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameters.

2. IN CASE OF UNIVERSITIES

H0: There is no significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Universities of India.

H1: There is significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Universities of India.

Table 7: ANOVA

Sum of Square

D.

F.

Mean Squares

F Calculated

Value F table value

@ 5%

Sign.

level

Decision

Between Institutes

85748.21 99 866.14 1.37 1 H0 is rejected Between

Parameters

50503.78 4 12626 20.03 2.37 H0 is rejected

Residual 249650.9 396 630.43

Total 385902.9

It has been observed from the above table that, for comparison between different institutes, F calculated value is 1.37 which is more than the F table value at 5% significant level which is 1.

Hence, Null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there is significant difference in the ranking score obtained by different universities is different.

In case of comparison between different parameters, F calculated value is 20.03 which is also more than F table value at 5% significant level which is 2.37. Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is concluded that there is also significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameters.

(7)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹⁵

3. IN CASE OF MANAGEMENT INSTITUTES H₀: There is no significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Management Institutes of India.

H₁: There is significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Management Institutes of India.

Table 8: ANOVA

Sum of Square

D.

F.

Mean Squares

F Calculated Value

F table value

@ 5%

Sign.

level

Decision

Between

Institutes 35212.8 49 718.63 2.71 1 H0 is rejected Between

Residual 51889.7 196 264.74

Total 109185

It has been also evident from the table that, for comparison between different institutes, F calculated value is 2.71 which is more than the F table value at 5% significant level which is 1.

Hence, null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there is significant difference in the ranking score obtained by different management institutes is different. In case of comparison between different parameters, F calculated value is 20.85 which is also more than F table value at 5% significant level which is 2.37. Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is concluded that there is also significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameters.

4. IN CASE OF PHARMACY INSTITUTES H0: There is no significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Pharmacy Institutes of India.

H1: There is significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter among different Pharmacy Institutes of India.

Table 9: ANOVA

Sum of Square

D.

F.

Mean Squares

F Calculated

Value

F table value

@ 5%

Sign.

level

Decision

Between

Institutes 19893.9 49 406 1.43 1 H0 is

rejected Between

Residual 55598.3 196 283.67

Total 80728.9

It has been observed from the table no. 9 that, for comparison between different institutes, F calculated value is 1.43 which is more than the F table value at 5% significant level which is 1.

Hence, null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is concluded that there is significant difference in the ranking score obtained by different pharmacy institute is different. In case of comparison between different parameters, F calculated value is 4.62 which is also more than F table value at 5% significant level which is 2.37. Therefore, Null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is concluded that there is also significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameters.

X. FINDINGS A. ENGINEERING INSTITUTES:-

1. Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, has occupied 1^st position (Rank) in overall ranking & outreach and inclusivity (OI) parameter, Whereas it has occupied second position (2^nd Rank) in other parameters such as Teaching, Learning Resources (TLR), Research, Professional & Collaborative Performance (RPC) and Perception (PR) respectively, Further it has occupied 8^th position in Graduation Outcome (GO) parameter. The top position indicates that IIT, Madras has taken maximum efforts in all round development of the students. The 2^nd rank of TLR indicates that the qualified and experienced faculty is the backbone of teaching learning process and rendering

(8)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹⁶

learning facilities to the students such as library, libratory, sports & extracurricular facilities. This shows that IIT, Madras has excelled in this parameter. The 2^nd rank of RPC indicates that it is also strong in Research and development activity which is the backbone of the engineering education.

Faculties have been significantly contributed to the Research & Professional consultancy.

Through the perception ranking it shows that IIT, madras has created Brand of their institute among the public domain more specifically in the Engineering education sector.

2. Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay has occupied 2^nd rank in overall ranking.

Whereas it has occupied 1^st position in other parameters such as RPC and PR respectively. This indicates that the institute is very strong in Research & Development activity. Further, it has occupied 4^th, 5^th &

7^th position in TLR, GO, OI parameters respectively. The overall 2^nd position signifies that they are also at par with IIT Madras. The 1^st position of RPC indicates that, IIT Bombay have exceedingly performing in Research & Professional consultancy. This shows that their faculty &

students have exceedingly contributing to the research & development segment as compared to other IIT’s.

3. Indian Institute Of Technology, Kharagpur, has occupied 3^rd position in overall ranking and has achieved 4^th position in RPC & OI parameters. Further, it has achieved 5^th, 6^th

& 10^th position in other parameters such as PR, GO & TLR respectively.

4. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi has occupied 4^th position in overall ranking. And it has occupied 3^rd, 5^th, 7^th, 13^th & 16^th position in different parameters such as PR, RPC, TLR, and OI & GO respectively.

5. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur has occupied 5^th Rank in overall ranking. It has occupied 3^rd position in RPC parameter.

And 4^th position in PR & GO parameters respectively. Further, it has occupied 10^th &

14^th position in OI & TLR parameters respectively.

6. Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee has achieved 6^th Rank in overall ranking, OI &

PI parameters respectively. It has achieved 7^th & 9^th Rank in RPC & GO parameters. In TLR parameter it has achieved 12^th Rank. It needs further improvement in TLR parameter for sustaining in the competitive environment.

7. Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad has occupied 7^th Rank in overall ranking. It has occupied 9^th position in TLR & PR parameters respectively. In RPC, GO & OI, it has occupied 12^th, 13^th & 16^th position.

This institute has awarded rising star category.

8. Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar at 8^th position in the overall ranking and 6^th position in TLR parameter. It has achieved 7^th, 9^th, 18^th & 20^th position in the PR, OI, RPC & GO parameters respectively. This institute has also awarded rising star category in the engineering institutes.

9. IIT Ropar & IIT Patna has occupied 9^th &

10^th position in overall ranking. These institutes have also given rising star status by NIRF.

B. UNIVERSITIES

1. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, has occupied 1^st position in overall ranking as well as GO & PI parameters. This shows that Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore has outperformed among the other Indian universities, whereas it has achieved 2^nd rank in TLR & RPC respectively. This 2^nd rank shows that it has very strong teaching learning resources and Research &

Professional Consultancy.

2. Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai has occupied 2^nd position in overall ranking.

This indicates that this is also matching at

(9)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹⁷

par with Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Further, it has occupied first position in RPC parameter. This first position signifies that in RPC this university is far ahead as compared with other university. Their faculty has exceedingly contributing to the research & development activity which is the backbone of the higher education sector. And it has occupied 6^th, 7^th, 14^th & 17^th ranks in PR, TLR, GO & OI parameters respectively. From this it is found that there is need to improve the ranking of GO & OI segments.

3. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi has achieved 3^rd position in overall ranking.

From this 3^rd position it shows that JNU, New Delhi is not far behind with other universities. Whereas it has achieved 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th position in GO, PR & TLR parameters respectively. Further, it has 8^th &

10^th position in RPC & OI parameters respectively. The university needs to further improve their ranking position in RPC & OI segment.

4. University of Hyderabad, has occupied 4^th position (4^th Rank) in overall ranking. It has occupied 1^st, 3^rd & 4^th position in OI, RPC &

PR parameters respectively. Further, it has achieved 11^th & 18^th position in TLR & GO parameters respectively.

5. Tezpur University, Tezpur has achieved 5^th position (5^th Rank) in overall ranking &

RPC parameter respectively. Further, it has achieved 6^th & 8^th position in OI & TLR parameters respectively. It has achieved 13^th position in PR parameter & achieved 17^th position in GO parameter.

6. University of Delhi has occupied 6^th rank in overall ranking. It has at 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th&15^th position in OI, RPC, PR & TLR parameters respectively. Top 3^rd, 4^th & 5^th position in respective parameters indicates that Delhi University has performing well.

7. Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi, Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology,

Thiruvananthapuram, Birla Institute of Technology & Science –Pilani & Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh have occupied 7^th, 8^th, 9^th & 10^th position in overall ranking amongst top ten universities in India.

C. MANAGEMENT

1. Indian Institute of Management, Bangaluru has achieved 1^st position in overall ranking as well as achieved same position in the TLR, RPC, GO & OI parameters respectively. This shows that among management institutes IIM, Bangalore has exceedingly performing outstanding in the TLR, RPC, GO & OI metrics. It has taken significant effort to achieve the 1^st position.

It has achieved 4^th position in PR parameter.

It needs little more improvement in PR parameter.

2. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmadabad has achieved 2^nd position in overall ranking as well as GO & OI parameters respectively. Whereas it has achieved 1^st Rank in PR parameter. And it has secured 4^th Rank in TLR & RPC parameter respectively.

3. Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta has occupied 3^rd position (3^rd Rank) in overall ranking. And it has achieved 2^nd in RPC, 3^rdin GO, 4^thin OI, 5^th in PR & 6^thin TLR parameters receptively.

4. Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow has achieved 4^th position in overall ranking.

It has achieved 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th in PR, OI & GO parameters respectively and it has achieved 7^th position in TLR & RPC parameter.

5. Indian Institute of Management, Udaipur has occupied 5^th position in overall ranking as well as GO & RPC parameters. It has achieved 6^th in OI, 7^thin PI, and 8^th in TLR parameter respectively. In management category this institute has given rising star status by NIRF.

6. Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode has achieved 6^th rank in overall ranking. It

(10)

Bipin R. Bankar, Kumar B. Pawar and Sanjay T. Dandele ijesird, Vol. III, Issue V, November 2016/²⁹⁸

has achieved 5^th rank in PI parameter and 6^th rank in RPC, GO, & PR parameters respectively and 9^th rank in TLR parameter.

7. International Management Institute-New Delhi, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and Indian Institute of Management, Indore has achieved 7^th, 8^th, 9^th and 10^th rank in overall ranking amongst the management institutes of India.

D. PHARMACY

1. Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences- Manipal has achieved 1^st Rank in overall ranking and TLR parameter. It has achieved 2^nd position in GO parameter. Whereas it has achieved 5^th position in OI & PR parameters respectively and 8^th Rank in RPC.

2. University Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences- Chandigarh has secured 2^nd position in overall ranking. It has secured 1^st, 2^nd, 6^th, 7^th and 8^th position in RPC, TLR, PR, GO and OI parameters respectively.

3. Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi has achieved 3^rd position in overall ranking. It has achieved 2^nd in RPC, 3^rd in TLR, 5^th in GO, 8^th in PR and 9^th in OI parameters ranking.

4. Poona College of Pharmacy, Erandwane, Pune has got 4^th position in overall ranking. It has secured 1^st in PR, 3^rd in RPC and OI respectively, 8^th in TLR and GO parameters ranking respectively.

5. Institute of Pharmacy, Nirma University has achieved 5^th position in overall ranking. It has achieved 2^nd in OI, 3^rd in GO, 6^th in TLR & RPC and 7^th in PR parameters ranking.

6. Bombay College of Pharmacy-Mumbai, Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Amrita School of Pharmacy, Kochi, JSS College of Pharmacy, Tamil Nadu and JSS College of Pharmacy, Mysore has occupied 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th & 10^th position in overall ranking amongst the pharmacy institutes in India.

XI. CONCLUSION

The ranking initiative taken by HRD ministry in the year 2016 to rank different affiliated universities & recognized institutes in India through common framework namely NIRF is a good move and it is structured in nature. Before starting this initiative there was no formal ranking procedure exists. But the ranking has been conducted only by private agencies through survey. But the major drawback in conducting ranking by private agencies is that it is unstructured or informal in nature. Through this ranking the competition among different institutes may increase for improving their overall ranking and improve their quality and standards in education. The increased in quality and standards will help the Indian institutes to compete with international education standards. The outcome of this ranking paper indicates the performance of the top universities, technical institutes & their area of improvement.

Further, it has been concluded that there has been significant difference in the ranking score obtained from different parameter set by ranking framework among different Universities, Engineering, Management and Pharmacy Institutes in India.

REFERENCES

1. T.N. Srivastava, Shilaja Rego (2011), Business Research Methodology, Tata McGraw Hill, First reprint.

2. C.R.Kothari, Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques, New Age International Publishers, Second Edition.

3. Anil R. Sahu, Dr R.L. Shrivastava, Dr R.R. Shrivastava, Key factors affecting the effectiveness of Technical education- An Indian perspective, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2008, Vol II, WCE 2008, July 2-4, 2008, London, U.K.

4. Gupta, B. M. [2010), Ranking of performance of Indian Universities based on publication and citation data, Indian Journal off science and Technology, 3 (7), 837-843.

5. Pratap, G., & Gupta, B. M. (2011), Ranking of Indian Medical colleges for their research performance during L99-2008, Annuals of Library and Information Studies, 58, 203-2L0.

6. V.T. Bagalkoti, S.L. Sangam, Ranking of NAAC Accredited Indian Universities, National Conference on Scientometrics, September 2012, 317- 330.

7. https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfbookletfinal.