What the reported numbers measure
For CMC Ludhiana, the latest NIRF outcome file used here is the institution’s Medical submission for India Rankings 2025. The file identifies Christian Medical College, Brown Road, Ludhiana, by NIRF institute code IR-D-C-29209. Its placement table reports two broad groups, “UG [5 Years Program(s)]” and “PG [3 Years Program(s)],” rather than outcomes for every degree and department separately. The five-year UG group should not be read as a course-level MBBS result, and the three-year PG group should not be assumed to include every postgraduate, dental, nursing or allied-health award at CMC.
Each NIRF row includes the intake and admissions for the entering cohort, lateral-entry count, the academic year in which the group graduated in minimum stipulated time, placed students, the median salary of placed graduates per annum in rupees, and students selected for higher studies. The year shown beside the outcome is the graduating cohort year. It is different from the first-year intake year printed earlier in the row. These are institutional submissions to the ranking framework, not an independent audit of individual employment contracts. The NIRF India Rankings 2025 Medical submission states a median, not an average or highest package. Its salary column is annual and limited to graduates counted as placed.
UG five-year group: three reported graduating cohorts
For the 2020-21 graduating cohort, the NIRF row begins with 75 students admitted in 2016-17. It records no lateral entrants in 2017-18, then 69 students graduating in minimum stipulated time, 47 placed, a median of ₹3.6L per annum among those placed, and 22 students selected for higher studies. Dividing 47 by 69 gives 68.1%. This is a simple ratio of the report’s placed count to its minimum-time graduating count, rounded to one decimal place; NIRF does not label that calculation as its official placement rate.
For 2021-22, 75 entered in 2017-18, with zero lateral entrants in 2018-19. The row records 66 graduating in minimum time, 45 placed, a ₹4.9L annual median for placed graduates, and 17 selected for higher studies. The same placed-to-graduate calculation is 68.2%.
For 2022-23, the entry cohort was 75 students in 2018-19 and the table again records zero lateral entrants, in 2019-20. It reports 69 graduating in minimum time, 50 placed, a ₹4.9L annual median, and 19 selected for higher studies. The corresponding ratio is 72.5%.
Across these three rows, the reported placed count rose from 47 to 50 while the minimum-time graduating count moved from 69 to 66 and back to 69. The calculated ratio therefore increased from 68.1% to 72.5%, but it describes only these reported cohorts and denominators. It is not a forecast for current students, a guarantee of an offer, or evidence that every student who did not appear in the placed count was unemployed.
PG three-year group: outcomes and annual medians
The 2021-22 row records 43 students admitted in 2019-20, no lateral entrants in 2020-21, and 40 graduating in minimum stipulated time. Of those, 35 were reported as placed; the annual median for placed graduates was ₹14L, and five students were selected for higher studies. The placed-to-graduate ratio is 87.5%.
For 2022-23, 67 students were admitted in 2020-21, with no lateral entrants in 2021-22. The row reports 59 graduating in minimum time, 51 placed, a ₹16L annual median, and seven selected for higher studies. The ratio is 86.4%.
For 2023-24, the entering group was 70 students admitted in 2021-22; the table lists no lateral entrants in 2022-23. It records 66 graduating in minimum time, 63 placed, a ₹16L annual median, and one student selected for higher studies. The ratio is 95.5%.
The arithmetic uses only the two counts in each row. For example, 63 divided by 66 is 95.5% after rounding. It is not an official NIRF rate and it does not reveal who participated in a placement process, whether offers were accepted, how many offers one person received, or whether higher-study selections overlap with placements. Do not add placed and higher-study counts together as though the table says those groups are mutually exclusive.
The PG annual median is higher than the UG median in these reported periods, but the categories, training paths and graduate cohorts differ. This is not a like-for-like wage comparison between a specific MBBS course and a named postgraduate specialisation. The report does not break the PG group into medical departments or identify employers, roles, geography or pay distribution.
A stated service pathway is a separate measure
CMC’s Medical College page says that “nearly 80%” of its graduates join Christian mission hospitals in rural areas for at least two years. This is an institutional description of a service pathway, not a cohort-level placement statistic in the NIRF table. The page does not identify the reporting year, graduating cohort, denominator, data method, employment status or whether the statement applies to each programme. It should not be compared with the NIRF placed counts or used to infer a current guarantee.
The statement is relevant to a student considering where graduates may serve, but the practical terms need confirmation. Ask CMC whether a two-year rural mission service expectation is a requirement or a voluntary pathway for the programme you are considering, which hospitals participate, how the period is counted, and what happens if a graduate pursues further study or a different role. The available page does not answer those questions.
How to use the report when comparing options
Use the UG figures only beside other five-year UG outcomes that have the same graduating years, denominator and median-salary definition. Use the PG figures only beside comparable three-year postgraduate groups. NIRF’s annual median is the middle salary among the graduates it reports as placed; it is not the salary every graduate can expect. The values here are nominal rupees from earlier cohorts, not inflation-adjusted estimates for a 2027-28 entrant.
The report does not disclose average or highest pay, named recruiting organisations, specialty-level outcomes, internship stipends, the number who sought or participated in placement assistance, or what happened to graduates outside the minimum-time group. It also does not provide a course-by-course BDS, MDS, BPT, nursing or allied-health placement table. Those missing fields are not zeros. Before relying on these figures, ask the relevant CMC school for recent outcomes in the exact programme, the number eligible and participating, whether the reported role was employment or mandatory service, and whether the compensation figure is a salary, stipend or another measure. Until CMC publishes those details, the NIRF rows are the strongest usable aggregate comparison here, with the scope limits kept visible.