Criterion 4 is the one criterion the department cannot argue its way through. Nearly every sub-criterion is a formula NBA prescribes, applied to enrolment, pass and placement counts, and the SAR computes and prints the resulting assessment points itself.
Two structural facts shape the whole chapter and are visible in every table. First, admissions run well below the sanctioned intake of 30 — 17, 15 and 7 students in the three assessment years. Second, the cohorts are consequently small enough that one or two students move a percentage several points, which is why the SAR reports counts alongside every ratio.
The department reports the outcome without softening it. Enrolment ratio scores 0.00 of 20; success rate without backlogs scores 5.20 of 40; success rate in the stipulated period 4.80 of 20; academic performance 11.00 of 25 in first year, 6.84 of 20 in second and 5.68 of 15 in final; placement 18.80 of 40. Professional activities (4.7, 20 marks) is the one part of the criterion assessed on the record of activity rather than by formula, and it is where the department's evidence is strongest.
The official breakdown for Criterion 4, totalling 200 marks.
Enrolment ratio is (N1 + N2) / N — students admitted through state-level counselling plus institute-level quota, over the sanctioned intake of 30. It is averaged over the current and previous two academic years.
The three-year average is 43.33%, which falls below the lowest band in NBA's marking table (< 50% students scores 0), so the assessment is 0.00 of 20 marks. The SAR states this outright.
The trend within the average is upward, and steeply: 23.33% in 2023-24, 50.00% in 2024-25 and 56.67% in 2025-26. The most recent year on its own would clear the 50% band. Lateral entry contributes almost nothing — one student in 2022-23, one in 2021-22, none in the three assessment years — and the institute-level quota has admitted no students at all across the six years reported.
| Year | Sanctioned intake (N) | Admitted N1+N2 | Enrolment ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | 30 | 17 | 56.67% |
| 2024-25 | 30 | 15 | 50.00% |
| 2023-24 | 30 | 7 | 23.33% |
| Average | 43.33% |
SAR Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.3. Assessment: 0.00 of 20 marks.
Success rate is measured twice on different definitions — once for students who graduated with no backlog in any year, and once for all students who graduated within the stipulated three years whether or not they carried backlogs. Both are averaged over the last three graduating batches.
The stricter measure counts only students who passed every semester with no compartment or failure. Across the three most recent graduating batches — labelled in the SAR by year of graduation — the figures are 0 of 12 for the batch graduating in 2022-23, 1 of 20 for 2021-22, and 2 of 6 for 2020-21, giving success indices of 0.00, 0.05 and 0.33.
The average success index is 0.13, giving 40 × 0.13 = 5.20 of 40 marks. The small-cohort effect is visible in the spread: the 2020-21 batch of six produced the highest index in the set on two students.
| Graduating batch | Students admitted | Passed without backlog | Success index |
|---|---|---|---|
| LYG 2022-23 | 12 | 0 | 0.00 |
| LYGm1 2021-22 | 20 | 1 | 0.05 |
| LYGm2 2020-21 | 6 | 2 | 0.33 |
| Average SI | 0.13 |
SAR Table 4.2.1. Assessment: 40 × 0.13 = 5.20 of 40 marks.
Relaxing the definition to all students who graduated within the stipulated period raises the figures but not dramatically: 3 of 12, 3 of 20 and 2 of 6, for indices of 0.25, 0.15 and 0.33.
The average is 0.24, giving 20 × 0.24 = 4.80 of 20 marks. Comparing the two measures is informative — for the 2022-23 batch, three students graduated on time but none of them without a backlog, and for 2020-21 the two figures coincide, meaning both on-time graduates were also clean.
| Graduating batch | Students admitted | Graduated in stipulated period | Success index |
|---|---|---|---|
| LYG 2022-23 | 12 | 3 | 0.25 |
| LYGm1 2021-22 | 20 | 3 | 0.15 |
| LYGm2 2020-21 | 6 | 2 | 0.33 |
| Average SI | 0.24 |
SAR Table 4.2.2. Assessment: 20 × 0.24 = 4.80 of 20 marks.
The Academic Performance Index multiplies the mean CGPA of successful students by the proportion of those who appeared that succeeded — so it penalises a high mean achieved by only a few students. Successful here means permitted to proceed to the second year.
First-year mean CGPA sits in a narrow band across the three years — 6.34 in 2024-25, 6.00 in 2023-24 and 5.71 in 2022-23 — while the pass proportion varies far more sharply: 8 of 15, 6 of 7 and 9 of 11 respectively. That yields APIs of 3.38, 5.14 and 4.67 and an average of 4.40, for an academic performance level of 2.5 × 4.40 = 11.00 of 25 marks. The 2024-25 API is the lowest of the three despite carrying the highest mean CGPA, because barely half the cohort passed.
| 2024-25 | 2023-24 | 2022-23 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean CGPA of successful students (X) | 6.34 | 6.00 | 5.71 |
| Successful students (Y) | 8 | 6 | 9 |
| Students appeared (Z) | 15 | 7 | 11 |
| API = X × (Y/Z) | 3.38 | 5.14 | 4.67 |
SAR Table 4.3.1. Average API 4.40; academic performance level 2.5 × 4.40 = 11.00 of 25 marks.
The same formula applied to the second year, with success meaning permitted to proceed to the final year. Mean CGPA runs 6.93, 4.90 and 6.18 across 2023-24, 2022-23 and 2021-22, on pass proportions of 4 of 6, 7 of 10 and 5 of 14.
The 2021-22 figure is the drag: a reasonable mean of 6.18 combined with only 5 of 14 succeeding gives an API of 2.21. The average API is 3.42, for a level of 2.0 × 3.42 = 6.84 of 20 marks.
| 2023-24 | 2022-23 | 2021-22 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean CGPA of successful students (X) | 6.93 | 4.90 | 6.18 |
| Successful students (Y) | 4 | 7 | 5 |
| Students appeared (Z) | 6 | 10 | 14 |
| API = X × (Y/Z) | 4.62 | 3.43 | 2.21 |
SAR Table 4.4.1. Average API 3.42; academic performance level 2.0 × 3.42 = 6.84 of 20 marks.
Final-year mean CGPA is the highest of the three years — 7.94, 7.72 and 8.31 across 2022-23, 2021-22 and 2020-21 — which is what would be expected of students who have reached the final year. But the pass proportions are the lowest: 3 of 7, 3 of 5 and 2 of 5.
The result is APIs of 3.40, 4.63 and 3.32, an average of 3.78 and a level of 1.5 × 3.78 = 5.68 of 15 marks. Read alongside 4.2, this is the clearest statement in the SAR of where the programme loses students: those who complete perform well, and the difficulty is completion rather than attainment.
| 2022-23 | 2021-22 | 2020-21 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean CGPA of successful students (X) | 7.94 | 7.72 | 8.31 |
| Successful students (Y) | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Students appeared (Z) | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| API = X × (Y/Z) | 3.40 | 4.63 | 3.32 |
SAR Table 4.5.1. Average API 3.78; academic performance level 1.5 × 3.78 = 5.68 of 15 marks.
The placement index weights placement, higher study and entrepreneurship differently: (1.25X + Y + Z) / N, where X is students placed, Y students in higher study and Z students turned entrepreneur, over N final-year students. Placement therefore counts for 1.25 while the other two count for 1.
Across the three graduating years the cohorts are 7, 5 and 5 students. Placements were 1, 2 and 0; higher study 1, 1 and 2; entrepreneurs 0 in all three years. The resulting indices are 0.32, 0.70 and 0.40, averaging 0.47, for 40 × 0.47 = 18.80 of 40 marks — the strongest formula-driven result in the criterion.
| LYG 2024-25 | LYGm1 2023-24 | LYGm2 2022-23 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final-year students (N) | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| Placed in companies or government (X) | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Admitted to higher studies (Y) | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Turned entrepreneur (Z) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Placement index (1.25X + Y + Z)/N | 0.32 | 0.70 | 0.40 |
SAR Table 4.6.1. Average 0.47; assessment 40 × 0.47 = 18.80 of 40 marks.
The named record behind the index is listed year by year with enrolment numbers, so each count above is traceable to an individual.
Placements: Panchal Shubh Kiranbhai to Micron Semiconductor Technology India (2024-25); Pawar Bharat Shankarlal to Micron Semiconductor and Raval Stutiben Amitkumar to TDS Lithium-Ion Battery Gujarat (2023-24); none recorded in 2022-23.
Higher study: Patel Akshar Dilipkumar to Dharmsinh Desai University, Nadiad (2024-25); Chaudhary Srujal Yashvantbhai to Vishwakarma Government Engineering College, Chandkheda (2023-24); Chaudhary Piyushbhai Nagjibhai to Government Engineering College Sector-28 Gandhinagar and Chaudhary Adarsh Premjibhai to L. D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad (2022-23).
Twenty marks assessed on the record of professional activity rather than by formula — the part of Criterion 4 where the department's documented activity, rather than its cohort size, determines the outcome.
Ten marks split between having professional bodies with real activity, and the number and quality of engineering events organised.
Two bodies are documented. The department has held an ISTE Student Chapter since 2021, with membership and chapter certificates reproduced in the SAR. Its recorded activity comprises a two-day Entrepreneurship Awareness Drive with the Centre for Entrepreneurship Development (95 participants), an expert lecture on drone technologies (36), a Scratch coding competition (12), and a workshop on RTL design using Verilog HDL (37).
Separately, activities are run under RUSA, the centrally sponsored scheme aimed at widening access in higher education, particularly for SC/ST students, socially and educationally backward classes, women, minorities and differently abled persons. The RUSA activity list runs to twenty-five entries from 2017 onward and is weighted toward that mandate — self-defence training workshops for women (two five-day programmes), lectures on laws relating to women's safety, health awareness for girl students, women's empowerment, self-employment enhancement, and competitive-exam preparation.
| Event | Date | Participants | Organised by |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workshop — Introduction to RTL Design using Verilog HDL | 15 Apr 2023 | 37 | EC Department, GP Palanpur |
| Entrepreneurship Awareness Drive | 7–8 Apr 2025 | 95 | Centre for Entrepreneurship Development |
| Expert lecture — Drone Technologies | 15 Feb 2025 | 36 | EC Department, GP Palanpur |
| Scratch Coding Competition | 16 Dec 2025 | 12 | EC Department, GP Palanpur |
SAR Table 4.7.3
Expert lectures and industrial visits are tabulated separately for each academic year from 2022-23 to 2025-26, with topic, expert, organisation, date and attendance. These are the same events documented against the curricular gaps in Criterion 2 — here they are counted as engineering events in their own right rather than as gap remediation.
The volume is consistent year on year: three to four industrial visits and two to four expert lectures or workshops annually across the five-year window, with attendance frequently above 50 and occasionally above 90.
The department publishes an annual newsletter, Spectrum, which has run for four consecutive editions: Band-I (2021-22), Band-II (2022-23), Band-III (2023-24) and Band-IV (2024-25).
Each edition carries the Vision and Mission of both department and institute, the PSOs, photographs of departmental curricular and institute co-curricular activity, technical blog content and student placement news. The technical content is deliberately weighted toward upcoming technologies and developments in electronics and communication rather than being purely a record of events.
The editorial structure is stated: the Head of Department is chief editor, with a designated faculty coordinator, and student coordinators contribute each year as volunteers on proof-reading and content selection. Contributing students are named by edition in the SAR, which is what makes the participation claim checkable rather than general.
Participation in events outside the institute is recorded with student enrolment numbers, event, venue, year and outcome. The entry documented for the assessment period is the G3Q 2.0 quiz run by the Government of Gujarat in 2024, at which two EC students — Mali Paresh Rameshbhai and Prajapati Shailesh — were winners, with certificates reproduced.
Placement fair participation is also recorded here, matching the figures given in Criterion 2.
Criterion 4 runs from page 218 of the SAR. Every figure above is taken from the report; where a figure is not stated in the SAR it is not given here.
