NEEV Compliance & Performance Analytics

National Education Policy 2020 Complete Institutional Parameter-Wise Evaluation Matrix | Academic Year 2024-2025

Total Universities
47
State & Private Entities
Assessed Cohort 33 Comprehensive Audits Done
On Track Metrics 7 Compliance Score ≥ 50
At Risk Matrix 18 Score Band 10 - 49
Critical Remediations 8 Score Band < 10
Non-Compliant 14 Reporting Defaulters
State Standing Distribution All 44 Universities
Individual University Compliance Rankings Ranked Score Breakdown with Names
Complete Parameter-wise Audit Data Inspection Sheets
University Name Total Score Status Band Curr Align (15) ABC Reg (14) MDC/VAC (10) Skill/VOC (14) Global Edu (14) IKS Value (8) Res & Inn (15) Patents (8) Placements (5) Alumni (4)
Executive Summary
  • 7 of 47 Haryana universities are ON TRACK. 8 are CRITICAL. 11 have failed to comply with the NEEV reporting process. The assessed cohort average is 31/100.
  • Private universities outperform government universities. Private cohort average: 36/100. Government cohort average: 26/100. Private sector has 5 ON TRACK universities; government has 2.
  • Curriculum Alignment is the most consistently submitted parameter. Nearly all assessed universities report non-zero curriculum scores. Most other parameters are blank for universities below 30/100.
  • Skill Enhancement, VOC and AEC is the weakest parameter overall. Most universities score between 0 and 5 in this parameter. Institutions have built the infrastructure but have not enrolled students or mapped courses.
  • 8 universities are in the CRITICAL zone (score below 10). These universities require immediate intervention. All 8 have submitted data for fewer than 3 parameters.
Key Findings
  • 14 universities have not submitted any data. They cannot be assessed. HED must issue compliance notices immediately.
  • Placement data is absent for most universities. This is the primary student outcome metric and it is unverifiable for 70% of the cohort.
  • Alumni Connect scores are uniformly low across both government and private universities. Institutional engagement with alumni is near-absent.
  • Research output is concentrated in a few institutions. SRM (12), KUK (12), YMCA (12), SGT (12) account for a disproportionate share of the cohort's research score.
  • Critical-zone universities score across a narrow range of 2 to 9. They all share a common pattern: one or two partially submitted parameters and everything else blank.
Supporting Observations
  • ABC adoption is uneven. SVSU and CDLU exceed 99% registration. Several universities show zero ABC data. There is no middle ground.
  • MDC infrastructure is built but underutilised. Multiple universities have offered MDC courses but have near-zero student enrolment. Availability does not equal adoption.
  • Specialist universities need a separate framework. DLCSU (arts), SVSU (skill), NLU (law), MVSU (Sanskrit), Sports University (sports) and CCS HAU (agriculture) do not fit the standard assessment framework. Their scores do not reflect their mandate.
  • Government universities have higher non-assessment rates among specialist and agricultural institutions. 4 of 20 government universities have not submitted data, including 3 specialist institutions. This reflects a systemic gap in reporting compliance, not just performance.
  • Private universities with the highest scores show strength across all parameters. SRM (63), World University of Design (58) and SGT (53) score in at least 8 of 10 parameters. Their performance is broad-based, not concentrated in one area.
  • Several universities score well only on Curriculum Alignment. DCRUST (7), GJU (9), MDU (6), Starrex (7), IILM (14) and Om Sterling (15) have submitted curriculum data only. Their total score equals or nearly equals their curriculum score alone.