Read the cohort and denominator before the package figure
Placement figures at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal depend on which graduating group is being counted. The most comparable historical source opened for this page is MANIT’s data submitted to the Ministry of Education’s National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) for India Rankings 2024. It reports a four-year undergraduate programme group and a separate two-year postgraduate group, each with three graduating years. The table records students who graduated in the minimum stipulated time, students placed, median annual salary among placed graduates, and students selected for higher studies. It is institutional data submitted to NIRF, not a branch-wise placement report or a third-party audit. MANIT data submitted for NIRF 2024
The ratio of placed students to the reported minimum-time graduates can be calculated from those counts. It is useful as a rough cohort comparison, but it is not MANIT’s published placement rate: the report does not give a separate count of students who registered for, sought or were eligible for campus placement. Students pursuing higher studies, entrepreneurship, public-sector examinations or other routes may remain in the graduation denominator. Do not read the ratio as the chance that a new entrant will get a job, or as an outcome for a specific branch.
Median salary is also a different measure from average or highest package. It describes the middle salary among the placed graduates in the stated group; it does not show the salary of every graduate or the distribution above and below the median. The NIRF table reports an annual amount in rupees. Internship stipends and pre-placement offers in a live recruiter list are separate records and should not be merged into this cohort median.
Four-year UG group: reported outcomes for 2020-21 to 2022-23
MANIT’s NIRF 2024 submission reports the following outcomes for its UG four-year programme group:
The derived percentages use placed students divided by students graduating in minimum stipulated time, rounded to one decimal place. They are calculations from the report’s two columns, not a separately declared placement rate. The available table does not provide the placement-registered denominator or a branch split, so it cannot establish a CSE, Electronics and Communication, Mechanical or Civil placement percentage. It also does not disclose how many students were seeking higher studies, government examinations or other non-placement paths.
Across these three reported cohorts, the placed count and median both rise in the UG four-year group. That is a descriptive movement in a broad programme-duration group, not evidence that a particular department caused the change or that the next batch will repeat it. Programme mix, student choices and the labour market can differ by year, and the table does not supply enough detail to separate those effects. Use the values as historical context and compare branch-specific evidence only when a source gives the matching branch and cohort.
Two-year PG group: different cohort sizes and salary movement
The same NIRF submission reports a distinct PG two-year programme group. Its numbers should not be combined with the undergraduate table or assigned to one postgraduate degree such as M.Tech or MBA:
Here too, the percentages are simple placed-count-to-minimum-time-graduate ratios, rounded to one decimal place. They are not applicant-level odds and do not account for who registered or was available for placement. NIRF’s broad two-year group may include programmes with different selection routes, specialisations and hiring markets. The submitted table does not give a programme-wise breakup, so the MBA or an individual M.Tech specialisation should not inherit its median.
The PG median changes from ₹11.20L to ₹7L and then ₹8.50L across the reported cohorts, while placed counts rise in the last row. The figures show why a single “average package” headline would lose important context: the median, placed count and graduating group answer different questions. They also show why applicants should inspect the exact programme and cohort before comparing MANIT with another institute.
What the current placement list does and does not establish
MANIT’s placements page currently labels its 2025-26 record “Ongoing.” The linked file is an offer-and-internship ledger with recruiter, offer type, UG 2026 and PG 2026 columns, internship counts for the 2027 batch, package and stipend fields. It includes internships, PPOs, full-time offers and rows for different programmes; these categories are not equivalent to unique students placed. The page also links a 2024-25 overall file and branch-specific Mechanical and Civil records, but a headline should only be drawn from a document that supplies a clear reporting period, cohort and denominator. MANIT placement records · 2025-26 ongoing placement file
Because the 2025-26 record is explicitly ongoing, this page does not treat its interim rows or totals as final placed-student counts, a placement rate, or a final average or median salary. Its recruiter-level rows can show activity, but they cannot replace a completed cohort report. For a decision today, use the 2020-23 NIRF outcomes as historical institution-level benchmarks, keep UG and PG groups apart, and verify whether a newer completed report has been posted before relying on a latest-year headline.
For an applicant, the most useful follow-up is to ask for the same programme and graduating year you are considering: eligible or graduating students, students who registered or sought placement, unique students placed, students pursuing higher studies, and whether the salary statistic is median or average. Ask whether the number counts accepted full-time jobs, internships, PPOs or multiple offers. Without those definitions, a large recruiter list or offer total can overstate how broadly an outcome applies. The available official reports support historical UG and PG comparisons, but they do not provide branch-level placement rates or a final 2025-26 cohort result.