The useful baseline is the latest officially submitted cohort table, not a current-year placement promise. Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences submitted its Engineering-category data for NIRF 2026. That form reports three completed placement years through 2024-25, with separate UG four-year and PG two-year rows. The reporting edition is 2026; the outcomes themselves are historical cohorts. The label matters: neither the submission year nor the current calendar year changes the graduating cohorts into 2026 or 2027 placements. Open the NIRF 2026 Engineering submission.
The table records students graduating in the minimum stipulated time, students placed, median salary of placed graduates in rupees, and students selected for higher studies. It does not provide the number of students who registered for placement, participated, received offers, or were eligible. Therefore, the placed-to-graduates comparisons below are calculations using the two published counts, not institution-reported placement rates. They are useful for reading the reported cohort, but should not be treated as the probability that a new applicant will get an offer.
Engineering-category UG four-year outcomes
*Calculated from the two NIRF counts in each row and rounded to one decimal place. It is not a published placement rate, and the denominator is graduates in minimum stipulated time, not all students or placement applicants. The three rows show a lower count of placed graduates in 2024-25 even as the minimum-time graduating count rose. The reported median also rose from ₹3,00,000 to ₹4,00,000 between the last two cohorts. These are parallel changes, not evidence that one caused the other.
The form labels the median as an amount in rupees. It does not specify in that table whether the amount is annual CTC, fixed pay, or another salary basis, so this page retains the stated measure without adding “per year” or converting it into a package claim. The figures describe the NIRF Engineering submission, not every Karunya programme.
Engineering-category PG two-year outcomes
This is a separate PG [2 Years] reporting group in the Engineering form. The graduating count dropped sharply from 137 to 76 between the first two years, then was 78 in 2024-25. The number placed moved from 94 to 41 and then 52. Read the count alongside the cohort size: a placed count alone cannot show the placement chance for a current student.
The median shown for this group was ₹3,00,000 in 2022-23, ₹3,50,000 in 2023-24, and ₹4,00,000 in 2024-25. It is not an average or the highest offer. The source does not break these PG results down by individual degree, department, specialisation, or employer. Applicants to a particular programme should ask the department for that programme’s eligible, participating, placed, and offer counts, plus the compensation definition used.
Wider campus context is a different reporting scope
Karunya also submitted an Overall-category form for NIRF 2026. Its broad PG [2 Years] 2024-25 row reports 324 students graduating in minimum time, 152 placed, a median of ₹4,20,000, and 33 selected for higher studies. The Engineering-category PG row for the same graduating year reports 78, 52, ₹4,00,000, and 10. Both are official submissions, but they are different category populations; do not combine them or treat the difference as a conflict. The Overall form’s PG group is broader than the Engineering-category group. See the NIRF 2026 Overall submission.
The Overall form also reports UG [4 Years] outcomes for 2024-25: 1,126 minimum-time graduates, 800 placed, a ₹4,00,000 median and 90 in higher studies. The Engineering form reports 886, 630, ₹4,00,000 and 81 for its UG [4 Years] group. The matching labels do not make the populations interchangeable: one is Overall-category data and the other Engineering-category data. Use the group that best matches the programme and the question, and do not add their counts together.
What the university placement page does and does not establish
Karunya’s placement page describes a process that includes preparation, company engagement, student registration, job listings and applications, screening, interviews, offers, and post-placement support. It also shows a 2024-25 “Elite Placements” list for students with 8+ LPA offers and division-wise highlights for the School of CST/ET. These are useful examples of the roles and offers displayed by the institution, but a selected high-offer list is not a cohort-wide salary distribution. The division table gives percentages and highest salaries for named divisions, while the page does not explain the denominator behind those percentages. Keep those figures attributed to the page and do not extend them to every school or programme. View the institution’s placement page.
The same page has a section titled “Forthcoming Recruitment” with company names and package figures. Its heading describes future recruitment, so those amounts are not evidence of completed placements, confirmed offers, or a salary result for the 2024-25 or 2025-26 cohort. They should not be added to the NIRF outcome table. The page’s 8+ LPA examples also include named individuals; this article avoids repeating personal names and instead uses the list only to explain why a headline offer should not stand in for the cohort median.
How to use these figures when choosing a programme
Start with the correct population. The NIRF Engineering form groups UG four-year programmes together and PG two-year programmes together; the Overall submission covers wider categories. Neither table identifies a placement outcome for each named degree or specialisation. A programme-level comparison therefore needs its own cohort definition and denominator.
When speaking with the department, ask for the latest completed cohort and the reporting cut-off; how many students were eligible, registered, participated, and placed; how multiple offers are counted; whether the median is annual CTC, fixed salary, or another measure; and whether the figures cover the same campus and programme you are considering. Ask separately about internship conversion and roles if those affect your decision. A published highest offer answers a different question from a median, and a forthcoming recruiter list is not a final placement result.
For a fair comparison across institutions, match the academic year, programme duration, category, graduating group, placed-count denominator, and salary definition before comparing values. If those details are unavailable, treat the figures as background rather than a guarantee. The official report is the strongest source here for cohort counts; the institution’s placement page is useful for understanding its process and selected examples, but does not fill the missing programme-level denominators.