For applicants considering MNIT Jaipur for the 2027 intake, the latest completed placement cycle I could verify is 2024-25. Available evidence gives two distinct views of outcomes: NIRF’s fixed-duration graduate cohort and MNIT’s placement-office registration tables. They answer different questions, and their counts should not be combined.
The cohort view: NIRF 2026 data
MNIT’s NIRF 2026 Engineering submission reports outcomes for four-year UG programmes and two-year PG programmes. In the 2024-25 reporting year, 564 of 732 four-year UG students graduating in minimum stipulated time were placed, with a median salary of ₹10 lakh. Dividing 564 by 732 gives 77.05%; that is a calculation from the reported counts, not a placement rate explicitly printed in the table. The submission also records 24 students selected for higher studies.
For two-year PG programmes, the same Engineering submission records 157 placed among 210 students graduating in minimum stipulated time, a ₹10.5 lakh median salary and 25 students selected for higher studies. These programme-duration groups are the relevant comparison if assessing graduate outcomes across institutions using NIRF data. They are not an all-programme total: the submission is for Engineering and does not establish outcomes for every MNIT qualification.
NIRF’s median is a useful centre point for comparing placed graduates, but it does not show how salaries are distributed, which roles graduates took, or how many graduates sought work outside campus recruitment. The higher-studies count is reported separately and should not be added to placed students as though every graduate entered employment.
What the placement office reports
MNIT’s placement office publishes a separate 2024-25 branch table. For UG, it lists 717 students registered and 567 placed, or 79.08%; the reported average is ₹12.85 lakh, median ₹10 lakh and highest ₹64 lakh. For PG, it lists 345 registered and 209 placed, with average ₹10.78 lakh, median ₹8.83 lakh and maximum ₹46.38 lakh. These are report-level figures across the listed programmes, not the same cohort denominator as NIRF’s graduates in minimum stipulated time.
There is a material difference between the placement-office report and MNIT’s 2024-25 annual report. The annual report also gives 717 UG and 345 PG registered students, but reports 543 UG and 198 PG placed. It gives 75.73% for UG and 57.39% for PG, while the placement-office table gives 79.08% and 60.58%, respectively. The annual report’s UG average is ₹12.83 lakh, median ₹10 lakh and maximum ₹64 lakh. Its PG aggregate gives 198 placed, but the report excerpt does not provide an aggregate PG salary statistic in that table. The published sources do not explain the difference in placed counts. For a decision, treat each set as source-specific and seek clarification from the placement office if the exact placement rate is material; do not average the two or present one as a corrected version of the other.
The placement office’s registered-student denominator is also not the same as the graduating-class denominator. Students who register, graduate in minimum time, pursue higher studies, or do not participate may differ. Neither percentage should be read as a guarantee of an individual student’s chance of placement.
Branch differences and salary context
In the placement office report’s 2024-25 UG table, Mechanical Engineering had 87 placed out of 99 registered (87.88%), with a ₹10 lakh median and ₹10.74 lakh average. Computer Science and Engineering had 85 placed out of 110 (77.27%), with a ₹13 lakh median and ₹19.80 lakh average. Thus Mechanical recorded the higher placement share among these two branches, while CSE recorded higher average and median pay. This comparison is specific to these branch rows and this report; it does not establish why the difference occurred or predict later batches.
Other branch medians in that table include ₹12 lakh for Electronics and Communication Engineering (87 of 103 registered), ₹10.9 lakh for Electrical Engineering (80 of 106), ₹8.2 lakh for Metallurgical and Materials Engineering (78 of 97), ₹8 lakh for Chemical Engineering (72 of 95), ₹7.5 lakh for Civil Engineering (46 of 67), and ₹5.5 lakh for Architecture and Planning (32 of 40). The values are salaries reported in lakhs per annum by the placement office. A branch median describes the middle of the reported placed-student salary distribution, not a guaranteed salary, and branch sizes and participation differ.
The maximum figures need separate treatment. CSE’s ₹64 lakh was the highest UG figure in the report, while Electrical Engineering’s maximum was ₹51 lakh and Electronics and Communication Engineering’s was ₹56 lakh. These maxima can be useful as evidence that high offers occurred, but are poor estimates of the outcome a typical student should budget around. Compare medians first, then placement counts and denominator, and use averages and highest packages as additional context.
PG programmes are not one uniform outcome
The placement office’s PG table breaks outcomes down by department and specialisation, and its aggregate should not obscure small cohorts. For example, the CSE department row reports 38 placed from 46 registered, with a ₹12.5 lakh median, ₹14.89 lakh average and ₹46.38 lakh maximum. The Centre for Energy and Environment’s Renewable Energy specialisation reports 4 placed from 6 registered and a ₹8.75 lakh median. Management Studies reports 28 placed from 48 registered, with a ₹6.95 lakh median, ₹8.26 lakh average and ₹16.42 lakh maximum. These are different academic tracks and should not be used as interchangeable evidence for an applicant choosing a particular PG course.
Some PG rows include department-wide totals repeated across several specialisations. In those cases, the department’s salary statistics do not necessarily describe each specialisation independently. The report’s Urban Planning row shows nine registered and zero placed, with zeros in the salary columns. A zero placed count means there is no observed salary for that group; it must not be interpreted as a salary of zero. Applicants should consult the exact specialisation row and ask the department or placement office how overlapping totals are presented before comparing small cohorts.
Recruiters and what their presence establishes
The placement report lists D.E. Shaw, Zomato, Microsoft, Google, Salesforce, Arcesium, Oracle, Procore, NVIDIA, Visa, Marvell, Apple, Expedia, BNY Mellon, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JPMC, Siemens, Meesho, Deutsche Bank, BPCL, HPCL, GE HealthCare and Samsung R&D among prominent companies visited. Taken together, the names indicate that the report’s recruiter pool spans software and technology, finance, engineering and manufacturing, energy, consulting and healthcare-related R&D. That is a description of the named organisations, not a measured breakdown of job roles or hiring volume.
The report does not state how many students each company hired, how many offers were accepted, which branches were eligible for each role, or the base pay versus variable components behind each package. It also labels the figure of 132 pre-placement offers and the 240 companies visited as “Salient Features of Placement Session 2022-23” within the 2024-25 report. Those figures cannot responsibly be attributed to the 2024-25 cohort. The annual report separately lists 225 companies participated for 2024-25, but does not supply a recruiter-by-recruiter hiring count.
MNIT’s placement cell describes its work as including industrial training, placements and internships, with companies submitting job or internship notification forms and being scheduled for talks and selection activities. That describes the recruitment process; it does not establish that every student receives an internship or placement opportunity. Students weighing a branch should ask about current eligibility rules for company drives, role mix, internship-to-PPO conversion and offer acceptance, since these details are not quantified in the public aggregate tables.
How to use these figures for a 2027 application
The evidence supports a qualified conclusion: MNIT’s published 2024-25 outcomes show substantial campus recruitment, but results vary by programme and the published placement-office and annual-report totals do not fully reconcile. NIRF provides a cleaner fixed-duration cohort denominator and reports a ₹10 lakh median for four-year UG graduates in minimum time; the placement office supplies richer branch-level comparisons, but its denominator is registered students and its placed counts conflict with the annual report. Neither source provides a guarantee or a personalised outcome forecast.
For shortlisting, compare the median and placed count for the exact branch or PG specialisation, noting whether the denominator is registered candidates or graduates in minimum time. Treat the highest package as an outlier indicator, not an expected salary. For 2027 entrants, these are historical 2024-25 outcomes, not announced results for the 2027 intake. MNIT’s placement statistics page lists the reports currently available; check it for a newer completed cycle and ask the institute for clarification where the count discrepancy affects your decision.