What the NIRF placement tables measure
Andhra University’s AU College of Engineering (A) submission to India Rankings 2025 reports placement and higher-study data separately for four-year undergraduate programmes and two-year postgraduate programmes. These are institution-wide duration groups, not branch-level CSE, Mechanical or other department results. NIRF labels the population as students graduating in the minimum stipulated time, then reports how many were placed, the median salary of placed graduates per annum, and students selected for higher studies. The figures below preserve those definitions and report years; they are not placement guarantees for current students.
*Each percentage is a calculation of placed graduates divided by graduates in minimum stipulated time for the same row. NIRF does not label this derived ratio as a placement rate. It is not a rate among all eligible or participating students.
Reading the undergraduate series carefully
The four-year UG results vary across the reported cohorts. The number placed moved from 330 of 360 in 2020-21 to 315 of 372 in 2021-22, then 397 of 423 in 2022-23. In 2023-24 the report records 292 placed among 513 graduates in minimum stipulated time. The ratio calculated from those two values is lower than in the three earlier cohorts. The submissions do not explain why cohort sizes or placement counts changed, and they do not supply a branch-level split or a denominator for students who sought, were eligible for, or participated in campus placement. Avoid attributing the movement to a department, recruitment cycle or market cause.
The median salary is separate from the number placed. In the UG rows, the reported median rose from ₹5.50 lakh per annum in 2020-21 to ₹6.50 lakh in 2021-22, then was ₹5.88 lakh in 2022-23 and ₹6.25 lakh in 2023-24. A median describes the midpoint of salaries among the placed graduates reported in that cohort; it is not an average, highest package, or a promise to an individual student. NIRF’s summary does not give employer names, job roles, salary distribution or branch-level medians for these cohorts.
For readers comparing years, the source gives useful context but not a complete placement funnel. The undergraduate 2023-24 cohort is larger than the earlier reported cohorts: 513 students graduated in minimum time, compared with 423 in 2022-23. At the same time, 292 were reported placed in 2023-24 against 397 in 2022-23. The resulting 56.9% and 93.9% figures are arithmetically correct for those rows, but the reports do not say whether all graduates were seeking work or whether the same placement rules applied. The difference should prompt a request for department participation and eligibility counts, not a conclusion about the reason for the change.
A salary median cannot be combined with placement counts to infer how many students earned a particular salary. The ₹6.25 lakh 2023-24 UG median applies to the placed graduates in the submitted cohort; it does not show the spread above or below that midpoint, nor whether offers were domestic, international, on-campus or off-campus. The report does not publish a highest package alongside these cohort rows. Keep those distinctions in view when comparing a placement cell headline offer with NIRF’s annual median.
Postgraduate outcomes are a separate population
The PG table covers two-year programmes and should not be combined with the four-year UG figures. It records 93 placed from 510 minimum-time graduates in 2020-21, followed by 315 from 510 in 2021-22 and 430 from 510 in 2022-23. The corresponding calculated ratios are 18.2%, 61.8% and 84.3%. The reported PG median salary per annum was ₹6.50 lakh, ₹6.60 lakh and ₹6.80 lakh across those years. Higher-study counts were 67, 78 and 78 respectively.
These aggregate rows do not identify which postgraduate departments contributed to each result, whether all graduates sought employment, or the number who participated in placement. A large difference between the 2020-21 row and later PG rows is visible in the reported counts, but the public submission does not explain its cause. Applicants should use the data as a dated institutional snapshot, then ask a department for programme-specific placement reports, eligibility and participation counts, recruiter mix and current-cycle outcomes when comparing a particular M.Tech or other PG course.
The PG reporting series also needs a denominator caveat. The report gives 510 graduates in minimum stipulated time in each of the three PG cohorts, but does not give the number who registered for placement or were eligible to participate. The calculated ratios compare placed students with all reported minimum-time graduates; they are a reproducible institutional indicator, not a measure of placement-participation success. The increase from 93 placed in 2020-21 to 430 in 2022-23 is visible in the rows, but the report does not explain its cause. Programme mix or student decisions cannot be inferred from these figures alone.
Cohort dates are not the admission year
The latest cohort in the opened 2025 NIRF submission is 2023-24, even though the ranking edition is 2025. The 2024 submission provides earlier cohorts and repeats the UG results through 2022-23 and PG results through 2022-23. That overlap supports a consistent historical sequence, but neither document reports outcomes for students currently enrolled or guarantees a future result. NIRF submissions are institution-reported data; they do not replace a current AUCE placement-cell report with branch, eligible-student, participating-student and offer denominators.
For a decision about a specific course, request the latest department-wise report and check its graduating batch, number eligible, number registered or participating, number placed, median and highest salary definitions, and whether multiple offers are counted. Compare only like-for-like programme and cohort measures. The NIRF figures are useful for institutional context, while the available sources do not establish current branch-level outcomes or recruiter-specific chances.