Budget for Children in Madhya Pradesh 2001-2002 to 2008-2009

Budget for Children
in
Madhya Pradesh

Sr. Content Page No.
No.
1. Introduction 01
1.1 Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
1.2 Children in Development Plans and Policies
1.3 Why BudgetAnalysis?
1.4 Defining a Child
1.5 What is Budget for Children (BfC)?
1.6 Rationale for BfCAnalysis
1.7 Historical Perspective on Child Budget Work
2 Budgets for Children in MP
2.1 Situation analysis of Status of Children in MP
2.2 Rationale for BfC in Madhya Pradesh
2.3 Objectives for Bfc
2.4 Study period
2.5 Methodology
2.6 Limitations of the Study
2.7 Future Scope of the Study
3 Overview of BfC
3.1 Ranking of Madhya Pradesh on Human Development Index
3.2 Madhya Pradesh's Social Sector Spending
3.3 Share of Child Budget in Total State Budget of Madhya Pradesh
3.4 Comparison of BfCsAcross few States in Country
3.5 Expenditure on Children as a per cent of Net State Domestic Product (NSDP)
3.6 Child Budget Expenditure as a Proportion of Total Receipt
3.7 Child Budget Expenditure as a Proportion of Revenue Receipt
3.8 SectoralAllocation in BfC
3.9 Time Series for Sectoral Composition of Budget for Children
C o n t e n t s

3.10 Variance in Budgets for Children
3.11 Per Capita Expenditure in Child Budget
3.12 State-wise per Head Expenditure for Children
4 Detailed analysis of individual sector
4.1 Child Development
4.1.1 Expenditure on Child Development
4.1.2 Variance in Child Development Schemes
4.1.3 Highlights by CAG in Civil PerformanceAudit Report, 2004-05 on ICDS
4.2 Child Health
4.2.1 Expenditure on Child Health
4.2.2 Variance in Child Health Schemes
4.2.3 Performance on Child Development and Child Health related
indicators Vis-à- vis expenditure
4.3 Child Education
4.3.1 Expenditure on Child Education
4.3.2 Performance on Education Indicators vis-à-vis expenditure
4.4 Child Protection
4.4.1 Expenditure on child protection
4.4.2 Performance on Child Protection indicators Vis-à-vis expenditure
5 Key Findings
6 Conclusion andAdvocacy Points
7 Annexure 1 : Department wise List of Schemes/Programmes used in Child Budget
Analysis of Madhya Pradesh from 2001-02 to 2008-09
7 References

01
Budget for Children in Madhya Pradesh
Section 1 : Introduction
1.1 Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
India ratified the UNCRC on 11 December 1992. With this ratification it is mandatory for the
Indian Government to recognize all the rights of children as outlined in the treaty. It is also
obliged to submit periodic reports on progress on realizing the right of children, mentioned in
the treaty. Children in India have been entitled to over 40 specific rights in commensurate with
the UNCRC treaty. Some of the important child rights include:
 Right to life, survival and development
 Right to have the children's views respected and to have their best interests considered at
all times
 Right to a name and nationality, freedom of expression, and access to information
concerning them
 Right to live in a family environment or alternative care, and to have contact with both
parents wherever possible
 Right to health and health care, including rights for disabled children, social security and
welfare rights
 Right to education, leisure, culture and arts
 Special protection for refugee children, children in the juvenile justice system, children
deprived of their liberty and children suffering economic, sexual or other forms of
exploitation
1.2 Children in Development Plans and Policies
From the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969-74) onwards, children have found mention in national
development plans. The first National Policy for the Children was unveiled in 1974 in India,
declaring children to be most precious asset. The main focus of the policy was on child welfare
through promotion of basic minimum services for children.
In the Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-79), focus shifted from child welfare to child development
with the launch of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) in 1975. In The Sixth Five
Year Plan (1980-85), a variety of supplementing programmes and schemes related to children
were included to give a further boost to child welfare and development in the country.
On 30 September 1990, the World Summit for Children universally accepted that hunger and
malnutrition in different forms contribute to half of all child deaths. Following this India
formulated a Plan of Action for Children in 1992 that directly and indirectly dealt with child
health, particularly those in the pre-school age group, as well as women in the reproductive
stage. This was followed by the National Nutrition Policy in 1993. The State Governments too

02
were advised to draw up their own nutrition policies. All these policies were in sync with the
Eighth Five Year Plan (1992-97)that identified human development as its focus area.
The Government of India has declared its commitment to children in the Ninth Five Year Plan
(1997-2002), in terms of food and nutrition security, education for all, safe drinking water and
primary health care. While the Tenth Plan Five Year Plan (2002-07) marked the priority
through reduction in infant mortality rates (IMR) and mandatory completion of at least five
years of schooling.
In the Tenth Plan and Eleventh Plan (2007-12)periods several other important laws for children
were passed, such as the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005, the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2006 and the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006. Some other laws have been drafted but not yet passed, among them the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Amendment Bill 2006 and the Prevention of Offences against
Children Bill 2007.
The approach paper to the Eleventh Plan categorically states that education is the most critical
element in empowering people with skills and knowledge and giving them access to productive
employment in the future. Further, development of children is at the centre of the plan and the
government is committed to ensure that children do not lose their childhood because of work,
disease or despair.
More than six decades after independence, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
EducationAct, 2009 was finally notified on 3 September 2009, providing for free and compulsory
education of all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years as a Fundamental Right as written in
the Constitution. Key provisions in the bill are:
 25 per cent reservation in private schools for disadvantaged children from the
neighbourhood, at the entry level. The government will reimburse the expenditure
incurred by schools.
 No donation or capitation fee on admission.
 No interviewing the child or parents as part of the screening process.
1.3 Why BudgetAnalysis?
Budget is much more than the statement of government's expenditure and receipt for the fiscal
year. In modern economies, budget is the key instrument for the execution of government
policies. It is because the priorities and commitments of the government get truly reflected in
the allocations made and the expenditure incurred in various fields.
Using findings of analysis of budgets and other budget-related documents as a tool for research
and advocacy offers certain advantages. First, it provides the researchers an insight into
understanding whether the government is putting its money where its mouth is. Second, it
provides the researchers and the citizens an unassailable source of information that is derived
from the annual finance appropriation Acts, which are the law of the land, having been voted on

the floor of the Parliament or the LegislativeAssembly in states.
Finally, the government is the largest spender in social sectors. This spending largely influence
and would continue to influence the contours of disparities of all types including spatial, rural-
urban, gender and social.
1.4 Defining a Child
In consonance with the UNCRC and The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000, all individuals in the age group of 0-18 years are considered children. The very same age-
group has been considered hereafter for child budget analysis.
1.5 What is Budget for Children (BfC)?
Budget for children is not a separate budget. It is an attempt to disaggregate from the overall
budget (Union or State) those allocations made for programmes and schemes intended for the
benefit of children. Analysing trends in government's allocation and expenditure on child-
specific programmes and schemes would be one of way of holding government accountable on
it's commitments toward children and priorities set for different sectors programmes/schemes
like development, health, education, protection etc. Analysis of the budget of children helps us
in taking stock of children's need in different sectors, vis-à-vis resources allocation and its
utilization. It is important because better performance in terms of outcome indicators is
determined not only by the resource allocation but also by efficient utilization and quality of
expenditure.
1.6 Rationale for BfC analysis
 Children (0-18 age group) are over two-fifths of the population in the country and hence a
vital constituent.
 In 2002, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended budget analysis to
ensure compliance with Article 4 of the UNCRC and to show spending on children, identify
priorities for children and advocate for allocating resources to the maximum extent
available in favour of children.
 Child budgeting makes budgetary decisions affecting children more visible and
transparent and makes government more accountable.
 It helps decision-makers to be aware of the impact of their policies on children and young
people.
Child budget initiatives at International Level
 Australia: Women's Budget since 1984
 South Africa: Children's Budget Project since 1994
 Brazil: Children's Budget Project since 2001-02
 Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania: Children's Budget Project since 2005
03

1.7 Historical perspective on child budget work
Child budget work began in India in 2000 with the pioneering efforts by the organization 'HAQ:
Centre for Child Rights', New Delhi. HAQ's first report, “India's Children and the Union Budget”,
was released in September 2001. Following the HAQ's report in 2001, the Government of India
undertook child budget analysis for the first time in 2003, drawing upon HAQ's methodology.
In October 2005, the Government of India announced that it would be undertaking child budget
work in the Centre as well as the States, just as it would undertake gender budgeting. Child
Budgeting has since then also included in the Government's National Plan of Action for Children
(2005).
Other than for the Union budget, HAQ has also carried out Child Budget analysis in seven states
namely, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Orissa and Uttar
Pradesh. The present child budget analysis for the state of Madhya Pradesh has mainly drawn
upon HAQ's methodology.

04

Section 2 : Budget for Children in Madhya Pradesh
2.1 Situation analysis of status of children in MP
Children in Madhya Pradesh constitute about 46.86 per cent slightly less than half of the total
state Population according to Census 2001, which is around 32 million. The state's performance
on various child related outcome indicators is very dismal when compared to other states,
national and international standards. Few examples highlighting the status of children in
Madhya Pradesh are as follows:
Table 2.1 : Performance of Madhya Pradesh on child related indicators.
Sr. Position of MP Source
No.
1. Madhya Pradesh Ranks first with 60 percent NFHS III
malnutrition level among the children below five years
age in the country.
2. State rank second with under five child mortality NFHS III
rate at 94per 1000 child population.
3. Madhya Pradesh ranks second with 74.1 percent NFHS III
children being anemicunder five years age.
4. Highest infant mortality at 70per 1000 live births. NFHS III
5. Only 40 percentof children in age group12-23 NFHS III
who are fully immunized.
6. Comparatively higher drop out rates at 15 percentin AnnualAdministrative
both primary and upper primary levels. report School Education
Department, 2008-09
7. Out of 167 lakhs children enrolled in elementary education AnnualAdministrative
hardly 18.26 percent (30.5 lakhs)are getting report School Education
enrolled in high school and higher secondary schools. Department, 2008-09
8. Education Development Index indicate that Madhya DISE report, 2007-08
Pradesh is the worst performer at upper primary level
and 6th worst performer at primary level on the count
of performance on outcome indicatorsamong 35 states
9. In the crime against children Madhya Pradesh is National Crime Bureau
ranking first that is worse than any other state. Report, 2007
10. Madhya Pradesh ranks fifth with 10.65 lakh child Census, 2001
labours in the country.
05

2.2 Rational of BFC in MP
For quite a long time Madhya Pradesh has been identified as one of the BIMARU state along with
Bihar, UP and Rajasthan. There are various anecdotal incidences showing GDP growth of these
states has an adverse impact on national economy. Performance of state's economy is not very
encouraging if take a look at following statistics. The economy of Madhya Pradesh has grown at
compounded annual rate of 4.18 percent during the period from 1999-2000 to 2008-09 one of
the lowest in the country and half the national GSDP figures at 7.58 percnet per annum. Share of
state's GDP in country's GDP has declined steadily over the years from 4.49 percent in 1999-2000
to 3.03 percent in 2008-09.
Table 2.2 :Average GSDP growth rate at Current Prices
State 01-02 to 08-09 04-05 to 08-09
MP 4.88 4.89
Rajasthan 7.62 6.26
UP 5.33 6.29
Bihar 7.14 11.03
Source: CSO, 2008-09
If we compare the MP with other BIMARU States during 2001-02 to 2008-09 we observed that the
GDSP growth rate of Bihar was nearly doubled than Madhya Pradesh while Rajasthan and UP too
were performing well. This gap in the GSDP growth rate has further widened during last four
years, where the economy of ultra-poor states like Bihar and Orissa crossed over 7 percent
growth rate, one of the international benchmark. Thus in terms of economic growth the state is
lagging far behind not only compared to other states but also the peers states in BIMARU
category.
Therefore, it would be interesting to analyse the priority and commitment of the state
government towards children in the state and whether the children are getting their due share
of allocation during the downturn or not.
In the light of low latitude for revenue generation for the state government, it would be
pertinent to analyse how much of the own income does the state government spent on children.
It's because the policy decision on major revenue generating sectors like forest and minerals are
governed by the union government.
With huge geographic spread of the state characterized by socio-cultural and economic
distinctions coupled with low population density (196 per sq km), the service delivery cost of
varius implementing schemes is higher in Madhya Pradesh compred to other states.
06

Besides, more than one third (35 percent) of the state population is comprises of SCs and STs.
Perfomance indicators for these communities are very poor for various sectors like health,
education, development etc, so also the children belonging to these communities are more
vulnerable and are hence more senisitve towards budgetary decisions and its implications.
Thus in the context of above bleak background on the count of poor performance of Madhya
Pradesh on various child related indicator, it becomes pertinent to analyze the quantum of
expenditure the state government is incurring on the welfare of children in the State.
2.3 Objectives of Child BudgetAnalysis in Madhya Pradesh
The objectives set for child budget analysis in Madhya Pradesh are as follows:
 To determine whether children are receiving their fair share of revenues in state's
economy.
To analyze budgets vis a vis various output and outcome performance indicators for
children
To compare spending on children in MP with that in other states where child budgeting
exercise has been undertaken.
To explore the change in spending priorities for children over a period of time, and
To advocate for better investment for children based on the performance in various
sectors like education, health, development and protection.
2.4 Study period
The present study covers the period beginning with formation of new Madhya Pradesh from
2001-02 to 2008-09.
2.5 Methodology
For the purpose of child budget analysis, all the schemes and programmes benefiting children
across all government departments were selected. Their allocations and spending were
examined for the nine fiscal years mentioned above. Some of the overlapping programmes/
schemes with pregnant women were also considered as they benefit children indirectly. There
are 16 government departments in MP that are engaged in implementing child-related schemes
and programmes. Names of the departments and their respective functions related to children
are listed out in the following table.




07

Table 2.3 : Names of the departments implementing various ch ild related schemes and
Programmes
Department Functions related to children
1 School Education Education of Classes from 1 to 12
2 Technical Education and Polytechnics
Manpower Planning
3 Sports and Youth Welfare Sports
4 Culture Scholarship
5 Public Works School and DIET Building construction
and Maintenance
6 Social Welfare Juvenile Justice, Welfare of disabled
children
7 Public Health and Family Welfare Health services to children BCG,
Maternity Schemes, Training of
women health workers and Dais
8 Women and Child Development (WCD) ICDS and other child related schemes
9 Panchayat and Rural Development (P&RD) Mid Day Meal
10 UrbanAdministration and Development Mid Day Meal and Nutrition
11 SC, ST and OBC Welfare Schools, Scholarships and Hostels
12 Medical Education Child and Maternity Hospitals
13 Labor Child Labour Welfare
14 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Food grains for Mid Day Meal
Protection
15 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Welfare of Bhopal Gas Victim Children
16 Public Relation Advertisement
Total numbers of child related schemes/programmes referred for the analysis and it's further
sector-wise categorization is furnished in the following table.
08

Table 2.4 : Sector wiseTotal Schemes/Programmes in MPChild BudgetAnalysis from 2001-02
to 2008-09
From the state budget books for various years 340 child related schemes and proagrmmes were
identified for analysis. The complete list of schemes and programmes used in child budget
analysis is given in Annexure 1. The sectoral distribution of the schemes/programme shows that
the highest numbers of schemes/programmes are falling in education sector, followed by child
development sector. Proportionately very few schemes have been earmarked in child health and
child protection sectors. Besides, the major departments involved in child budget are WCD,
school education, public health and social justice. SC/ST and OBC welfare department is also
playing a crucial role in implementing around one third of the total schemes/programmes that
are targeting children from marginalized communities. Number of schemes/programmes
especially targeting girl child are less. Child related schemes/programmes benefit both boys &
girls in geeneral.
2.6 Limitations of the study
The scope of the study attempted to cover all the funds that are flowing through the state
budget and gets reflected in the state budget book of accounts. Yet there are many other funds
that do not pass through the state budget. Majority of these funds are the funds from central
government that are received directly by the respective implementing agencies along with the
state's share of matching grant at the state or district level and gets spend by them.
These funds are usually called as 'Off Budget Funds” and does not get reflected in the state
budget books. For example, funds of major flagship programmes that are running in mission
mode like the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Nationl Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and
Reproductive Child Health (RCH) etc usually bypasses the state budget. These funds are not
included in the present study, since they are outside the purview of the state budget. In the
present study we are trying to quantify the total amount that the state government is spending
out of its own budget. At the same time one can not ignored the importance of funds that are
Sectors Total Proportion to Schemes/ Child and 100% Girl
Schemes/ Total CB Schemes/ Programmes other Child
Programmes Programmes 100% Targeted Schemes/ Schemes/
at Children Programmes Programmes
Development 35 10.29 19 16 5
Health 15 4.41 3 12 0
Education 271 79.71 262 9 13
Protection 19 5.59 16 3 2
Total Child
Budget 340 100 300 40 20
09

bypassing the state budget as they give the broad idea about total investment being made for
the children in the state.
2.7 Future Scope for Study
2.7.1 Off Budget Funds
Inclusion of the angle of off budget fund in the present child budget analysis would add new
dimension to the analysis and would help to emerge with more correct and comprehensive
picture giving exact estimation of funds getting spent of children in the state from various
sources like through and bypassing the state budget.
2.7.2 Child budget analysis through the perspective of marginalized communities
Madhya Pradesh comprises of highest percentage of SC and ST population together (35 percent)
in the country. Performance of SCs and STs on various sectoral outcome indicators is poor
compare to non SC/ST population. Thus, the budget allocation and expenditure on the children
of these marginalized communities is of utmost necessity. Hence analysis of child budget with
SC/ST perspective too would enable to portray the reality picture to measure the government
efforts in the direction of welfare of children of marginalized communities vis-avis their actual
needs.
2.7.3 Bifurcation of the expenditure to gauge the extent of direct benefits
It would be very interesting to analyze and segregate further the quality of expenditure in terms
of administrative expenses vis-à-vis the direct benefits accrued by beneficiaries. It was the
general observation that the though there are many schemes or programmes being run for child
welfare many a times they have very miniscule allocations and overlapping objectives. At the
same time the cost of implementing such schemes is too high than that of the actual benefits
reaching the needy. Also, in the state like Madhya Pradesh where population density is low, cost
of service delivery is rather higher to reach sparsely located population compared to other
states with proportionately higher population density. Such an exercise would help to keep
check on quality of expenditure with duplication of scheme objectives and would also suggest
some common channels to reach people through cost effective service delivery.

10

Section 3 : Overview of Budgets for children in MP
3.1 Ranking of Madhya Pradesh on Human Development Index (HDI)
HDI is a composite index used to rank countries/states by their status of human development. It
is claimed as a standard means of measuring human development a concept that, according to
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), refers to the process of widening the
options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, health care, income,
employment etc.
Table 3.1: Human Development Index Ranking for 15 Large States
The HDI combines normalized measures of life
expectancy, literacy, educational attainment,
and GDP per capita across the countries/
states.
Except the minor improvement in ranking by
one point between 1991 and 2001, it may be
seen from the table that MP continues to rank
fourth from the bottom among the 15 large
states on the HDI count in the country.
3.2 Madhya Pradesh's Social Sector Spending
State's spending can be broadly classified in to spending on economic sector and social sector
besides general administration. The economic sector spending involves expenditure on
activities that are economically important like agriculture, electricity, transportation, etc.
Social sector spending is more crucial for our analysis as majority of spending on children fall in
social service category.
States 1991 2001
Kerala 1 1
Punjab 2 2
Tamil Nadu 3 3
Maharashtra 4 4
Haryana 5 5
Gujarat 6 6
Karnataka 7 7
West Bengal 8 8
Rajasthan 11 9
Andhra Pradesh 9 10
Orissa 12 11
Madhya Pradesh 13 12
Uttar Pradesh 14 13
Assam 10 14
Bihar 15 15
Source: National Human Development Report
11

Table 3.2: Social Sector Spendin g as percentage of Total State spending across different
states
In terms of social sector spending too, Madhya Pradesh ranks fourth from the bottom among
the 15 large states in the country going by the latest budget statistics.
Madhya Pradesh performance on HDI and Social Sector Spending
MP is performing poorly on not only on the count of HDI but also in terms of social
spending. Interestingly, the states like Bihar , Assam and UP that are ranked below
on HDI ranking are spending more on the s ocial sector than that of
Madhya Pradesh.
Madhya Pradesh
States Accounts Revised Estimates Budget Estimates
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Rajasthan 37.66 36.63 40.29
Assam 35.68 39.62 34.78
Maharashtra 33.88 36.70 32.84
Bihar 32.61 32.85 36.94
Gujrat 32.37 33.14 34.55
West Bengal 31.55 34.47 36.31
Orissa 31.23 32.89 32.44
Tamilnadu 31.07 34.07 35.65
Andhra Pradesh 31.02 35.55 36.95
Uttar Pradesh 30.99 32.22 31.53
Kerala 30.62 32.71 34.69
Madhya Pradesh 30.00 30.74 31.39
Karnataka 29.66 33.92 36.59
Haryana 28.11 32.46 31.42
Punjab 20.77 20.99 24.65
Average 31.15 33.26 34.07
Source: RBI State Finance Report, 2008-09
12

3.3 Share of Child Budget in Total State Budget Expenditure
Child budget constitutes nearly 52 per cent of the total social sector spending in MP. As a
proportion of social sector spending, child budget has shown a big jump of 10 percentage points
from 46.82 percent in 2001-02 to 56 percent in 2004-05. Thereafter for next five years it largely
remained constant at around 55-56 per cent. During 2001-02 to 2008-09, child budget has grown
at a faster rate (16.43 per cent) compared to social sector (12.62 per cent) and total state
budget (13.17 per cent).
Table 3.3 : BfC as % of State Budget and Social Sector Budget
Broad Budgetary Trends in India with respect to children
An analysis of the broad trends in budgetary allocations in India shows thatas a result of the
growing economy, social sector expenditures have been increasing both as a proportion of
aggregate government expenditure and real expenditure (i.e. at constant prices) since the
1990s. Increased policy efforts and the expansion of programmes in nutriti on (ICDS) and
education (Mid-day Meal Scheme, Sarva ShikshaAbhiyan) have resulted in steady increases
in expenditure on children.
Years % of State Budget % of Social Sector Budget
2001-02 14 46
2002-03 16 47
2003-04 13 46
2004-05 13 56
2005-06 14 55
2006-07 17 55
2007-08 17 56
2008-09 17 56
Average for eight years 15.13 52.13
Source: M.P. State Budget (Demands for Grants 2001-02 to 2008-09)
13

In monetary terms, expenditure on children in the state budget has increased steadily over the
years from Rs 2343 crore in 2001-02 to Rs 6794 crore in 2008-09 with average per annum spending
of Rs 4095 crore. On an average the year on year increase in the quantum of child budget is Rs 620
crore per annum. However, inability to tr anslate these increasing outlays into better
performance indicators in terms of child welfare is the real challeng e before the State
Government, as evident from the situation analysis of status of children in Madhya Pradesh.
3.4 Comparison of BfCs across few states in the country
Table : 3.4 Spending on children by different states
Besides Madhya Pradesh, there are six
other states in India, where child
budgeting exercise has been
undertaken. Despite MP being one of the
worst performers in both HDI and social
sector spending, expenditure on
children is one of the highest among the
seven states where the child budgeting
exercise has been undertaken.
However, one can not ignore the fact
that state's spending is miniscule just
one third compared to its children
population at around 46 percent.
Expenditure on Children in the State Budget (Amount in Rs Crore)
6794
5765
4705
4057
3458
2733
2884
2343
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
2001-02 AC 2002-03 AC 2003-04 AC 2004-05 AC 2005-06 AC 2006-07 AC 2007-08 RE 2008-09 BE
Year
Amount
States BfC as % of Total Budget
(Average BE for 2004-05 to 2008-09)
MP** 15.94
UP* 14.15
HP* 14.12
AP* 14.07
Orissa* 13.70
WB* 13.39
Assam* 9.92
** Budget for Children Unit, Sanket Centre for
Budget Studies *Child Budgets, HAQ
14

One has to also consider the fact that approximately, 35 percent of the state's population is
comprised of marginalized communities including SCs (15.2%) and STs (20.3%). Thus it needed
for the state government to spend greater amounts on welfare of these communities as they are
lagging far behind on different outcome indicators compared to other communities.
Similarly, the scattered geographical spread of the state, coupled with high cost of service
delivery of schemes owing to low population density and poor performing state's economy in
past five years; cries for additional investment than the current levels. It is therefore highly
essential to uplift the state's performance on child related indicators to be at par with basic
minimum standards.
3.5 Expenditure on children as a per cent of Net State Domestic Product (NSDP)
The section particularly focuses on the fact that how much of its own income does the state
government is spending on children. On an average, during the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09,
the state government is spending around 4.04 per cent of its NSDP (at current price) on children.
Over a period of four years the increase is juts one percentage point from 3.52 per cent in 2004-
05 to 4.56 per cent in 2008-09. Three states Assam, HP and UP are spending more of it's NSDP on
children than MP, while AP, Orissa and WB are fairing poorly compare to MP. At the same time,
compared to long pending demand of civil society organizations for 6 percent of its GSDP
allocation in education and 3 percent in health sector for children, the present allocations
in all the four sector taken together is very miniscule.
Table 3.5: Child Budget as Proportion of NSDP at Current Prices
Years AP Assam HP MP Orissa UP WB
2004-05 3.72 6.30 4.86 3.52 3.46 3.51 2.44
2005-06 3.57 6.28 4.53 3.92 3.58 4.24 2.54
2006-07 3.69 6.55 5.11 4.17 3.35 4.74 2.60
2007-08 3.84 6.18 5.28 4.56 3.65 4.81 2.45
Average 3.70 6.33 4.95 4.04 3.51 4.32 2.51
Source: NSDP figure from Economic Survey of India and Budget figures from M.P. State Budget
3.6 Child Budget Expenditure as the Proportion ofTotal Receipts
Total receipts of the state government consists of revenue receipts from own resources, state's
share in central taxes (income from taxes), non-tax revenues, capital receipts and grants-in-aid
fromcentralgovernment.MadhyaPradeshis spending just 13.5 percent of its total receipts on
th
the children (average figure for 2004-05 to 2008-09) and is placed at 6position among the
seven states. This also shows that the poorly fairing states than MPon NSDPcount likeAP and
Orissaare too spending higher amounts of itstotal receipts on the children in theirstates.
15

3.7 Child Budget Expenditure as a Proportion of Revenue Receipts
th
Revenue receipts contributes nearly about 3/4 in the total receipts, hence it would be more
pertinent to look for the spending on children as a proportion of revenue receipts.
In terms of child budget expenditure as a proportion of revenue receipts Madhya Pradesh
th
retain its position at 6 place among seven states with spending of 19.8 percent of its
revenue receipt son children. The position of states gets changed on the indicator of
proportionate spending of total and revenue receipts. Assam at the top position in both the
indicators, while the state like West Bengal has shown jump in proportion of revenue receipt
expenditure over total receipts.
The correlation between share of revenue receipt and the percentage of child expenditure to
revenue receipt is comes out to be (-) 30. This indicates that, in the states where the revenue
receipts are higher; the percentage of child expenditure to revenue receipt in those states is
lower. It translates into the fact that from its own resources states are spending lesser amount
on children, indicating towards difference in priorities.
Child Budget as the Percentage of Total Receipt (Average 2004-05 to 2008-09 BE)
18.12
15.31 15.11 15.04
13.69 13.59 13.48
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
Assam HP AP UP Orissa MP WB
State
Percentage
16

Child Budget as the Percentage of Revenue Receipt (Average 2004-05 to 2008-09 BE)
23.56 22.97
21.11 20.94 20.44 19.82
18.24
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Assam WB UP AP HP MP Orissa
State
Percentage
Key Facts about Budget for Children in MP
 Spending on children in MP is the highest among seven states where child budgeting
exercise has been undertaken. But these huge spending are not translating into desired
outcomes as revealed through performance on outcome indicators.
 MPis spending 15.94 per cent of its total state budget on children.
 In monetary terms, average expenditure on children in the state budget is Rs 4,095
crore per annum. Child budget constitutes nearly 52 per cent of the total social sector
spending in MP.
 MP's child budget stands at 4.04 per cent of the NSDP(average for 2004-05 to 2008-09)
again it is low in the light of demand for 6% of GDPallocation for child education and 3
percent for child health
 MP is spending 13.5 percent of its total receipts and 19.8 percnet of its reveneue
receipts on the children in the state.
3.8 SectoralAllocation in BfC
In doing the child budget analysis, we have followed the same pattern of classification used by
HAQ: Centre for Child Rights, New Delhi. Important children-related programmes are grouped
into four major categories like Child Development, Child Health, Child Education and Child
Protection. These four sectors are directly linked to the rights of survival, development and
protection as mentioned in the UNCRC.
17

Child Development
In Child Development Sector the expenditure incurred on children in the age group 0-6 year is
considered. This age group is the initial and basic period of human life preparation hence
deserves high priority and attention in governmental programmes.
Child Health
Children are the future citizens and their healthy growth and development should be the
concern of the government. There are large inequalities in child health within the country;
children born in the poor family often having higher risk of mortality than those born in the
richest family. Hence in our analysis we have taken all the expenditure that includes
programmes and schemes related to the health care needs of children in (0-18) age group.
Child Protection
Child protection incorporates both prevention and care as well as recovery and rehabilitation
aspects. Child protection is used to describe a set of usually government-run services designed
to protect children and young people who are 18 or under and encourage family stability. In our
analysis we have included expenditure that is incurred by the government for protecting the
children (0-18 age group) like, programmes and schemes aimed at child laborers, children in
need of adoption, child sex worker, physically and mentally challenged children, homeless or
street children, neglected children or those who are treated as juvenile offenders.
Child Education
This includes schemes and programmes elementary education, secondary education and
technical education (Polytechnics). In Education sector, all the state expenditure that is made
on the children studying up to class XIIth and the expenditure that is on polytechnics have been
taken into account. In the technical education only polytechnics have been selected on the
basis of admission criteria.
Distribution of four sectors in Child Budget (Average) During 2001-02 to 2008-09
Education 90.98
Development 8.18
Health 0.72
Protection 0.12
18

As evident from the above chart, the overall focus of child budget is concentrated on child
education. The remaining three sectors, although equally important, have remained utterly
neglected over the years. In particular, the health and protection sectors, collectively do not
constitute even one per cent of the child budget.
Table 3.6 : Sectoral distribution of child budget across different states
In this section, Madhya Pradesh has been compared with those states where child budgeting
exercise has been undertaken and for which uniform data is available for the period from 2004-
05 to 2008-09 (budget estimates only). The key findings are as follows:
 Among the seven states HP is spending maximum of it's child budget (95-98%) on child
education. It is followed by WB and MP with 89.66 and 89.20 percent respectively.
 In terms of expenditure on child development, MP is spending 9.66 percent. The states
that are taking better care in terms of expenditure on child development are AP, Orrissa
andAssam.
 Madhya Pradesh's performance in terms of spending on child health and protection is
abysmally low. The least expenditure in these sectors indicates lesser commitment on
government's part. The poor states like UP and Orissa are seemed to be giving more
importance to child health compare to other states.
 At the same time child protection sector is one of the most neglected sectors
across all the sectors and among all the states.
comparative
States Education as Development Health as Protection as
per cent of BfC as per cent of BfC per cent of BfC per cent of BfC
MP 89.20 9.66 1.01 0.13
UP 86.74 8.55 4.52 0.19
HP 95.48 4.06 0.02 0.44
AP 83.28 14.46 1.10 0.99
Orissa 85.25 10.34 4.00 0.40
WB 89.66 7.61 2.49 0.24
Assam 89.09 9.68 1.11 0.12
Source: Figures for MPfrom State budget of MPand for other states from HAQ's state reports on child
budget.
19

3.9 Time series for sectoral composition of budget for children in MP
It may observed from the table that over the major part of the current decade in Madhya
Pradesh, the proportionate expenditure in child education and child protection has gone down.
Child development has mainly gained at the expense of education and to a small extent, health,
while child protection is practically stagnant.
Table 3.7 : Sectoral Composition of BfC in Madhya Pradesh over 2001-09
3.10 Variance in Budgets for children
Variance is the difference between Actual Expenditure and Budget Estimate (BE).Negative
variance indicates under spending while positive variance implies overspending. The table
indicates the following variance in child budgeting in MP.
 Variance in total state expenditure and social sector expenditure is in the accepted range
of (+/-) 5 per cent.
 However, it spills over beyond the permissible limits in the case of the total child budget
and its components including child education, child development, child health and child
protection.
 Among the sectors, development, health and protection have been subjected to
higher degree of negative variance, indicating higher proportion of unspent balances.
This too in pointing out towards graveness of systemic inefficiency.
Implications of variations
A greater degree of variations in budget estimates and actual expenditu re is not only a
cause for concern generally but is also of particular worry for the neglected sectors of child
development, child health and child protection. To begin with, the budget allocations are
inadequate for these sectors, and the n, even these meager amounts are not bei ng fully
utilised. However, overspending indicates lack of proper planning and estimation.
Year Education Development Health Protection
2001-02 AC 92.48 7.03 0.34 0.15
2002-03 AC 91.76 7.74 0.38 0.13
2003-04 AC 90.46 8.69 0.71 0.14
2004-05 AC 92.84 6.63 0.42 0.11
2005-06 AC 92.07 6.45 1.36 0.12
2006-07 AC 91.42 7.59 0.88 0.11
2007-08 RE 88.13 11.11 0.63 0.13
2008-09 BE 88.66 10.23 0.99 0.11
Average 90.98 8.18 0.72 0.12
20

Year Child Budget Education Development Health Protection
(0-18) (0-6) (0-18) (0-18)
2001-02 AC 829 766 153 2.85 1.23
2002-03 AC 1001 919 203 3.79 1.26
2003-04 AC 931 842 212 6.60 1.33
2004-05 AC 1156 1073 201 4.87 1.32
2005-06 AC 1331 1226 225 18.14 1.54
2006-07 AC 1515 1385 301 13.38 1.61
2007-08 RE 1825 1609 532 11.55 2.29
2008-09 BE 2115 1876 566 20.96 2.29
Average 1338 1212 299 10.27 1.61
Table 3.8 : Variance ofActuals from Budget Estimates in MPBfC
3.11 Per Child Expenditure
In terms of per capita expenditure, the state government is spending Rs 1,338 on every child
every year in MP (for nine years average from 2001-02 to 2008-09). The expenditure seems to be
too low when compared to their proportion in the population.
At the same time one has to be cautious as the total spending includes both plan and non-plan
expenditure.At the state level, proportion of plan and non-plan expenditure is high (65 percent)
compared to plan expenditure (35 percent). Non-plan expenditure largely constitutes
administrative cost, thus further reducing the scope of direct benefits to the beneficiaries.
Table : 3.9 Per Child Expenditure in BfC and its Different Sectors for MP
Year Total Total Total Education Development Health Protection
State Social Child
Budget Sector Budget
Budget
2001-02 0.97 -2.28 -9.95 -8.03 -19.71 -76.98 -39.89
2002-03 -0.24 -2.80 -11.51 -10.31 -15.06 -72.20 -44.03
2003-04 7.89 -9.55 -22.80 -22.24 -24.61 -50.92 -37.97
2004-05 7.91 -5.34 4.98 7.74 -18.39 -49.53 -18.17
2005-06 6.38 2.41 1.49 4.60 -20.53 -39.90 -10.48
2006-07 0.31 0.74 -0.42 2.64 -28.26 33.10 -10.83
2007-08 5.16 2.88 2.62 1.80 5.65 173.38 1.01
21

Among different sectors, clearly education is attr acting the maximum expenditure (Rs
1212), followed by development (Rs 299), while faring the worst are child heath(Rs 10.27)
and protection sectors (Rs 1.61).However, expenditure in child health is increasing manifold,
registering a growth rate of 31.45 per cent over the years. But it is far from satisfactory
considering the poor outcome indicators in the health sector. A critical observation of the table
suggest that rising trend in expenditure has gain momentum only from 2005-06 onwards.
3.12 State-wise Per Head Expenditure for Children
Table 3.10 : State wise Percentage of 0-18 and 0-6 age Group in total population
The table reveals that the proportion of
population in the age group of 0-18 and
0-6 is higher in three states namely UP,
MP and Assam than the all India figures
for these groups.
Based on above population proportion the overall per capita expenditure and for different
sector has been worked out for different states which are presented in the following table.
Table 3.11 : State Wise Per Head Expenditure (Average: 2004-05 to 2008-09) Amount in
Rupees
States State Child Child Child Child Child
Budget Budget Education Development Health Protection
Assam 16752 (1) 2827 (3) 2498 (2) 802 (2) 31.07 (4) 3.29 (5)
HP 15172 (2) 5126 (1) 4894 (1) 635 (3) 0.98 (7) 22.21 (2)
AP 8365 (3) 2939 (2) 2435 (3) 1339 (1) 29.09 (5) 27.54 (1)
Orissa 5319 (4) 1773 (4) 1515 (4) 519 (4) 69.61 (1) 7.01 (3)
WB 5201 (5) 1688 (5) 1509 (5) 387 (6) 42.15 (3) 4.06 (4)
UP 4692 (6) 1346 (7) 1162 (7) 317 (7) 60.45 (2) 2.53 (6)
MP 4555 (7) 1566 (6) 1395 (6) 404 (5) 15.02 (6) 1.94 (7)
States Child Child
Population Population
in 0-18 age in 0-6 age
group group
UP 49.56 19.03
MP 46.86 17.87
ASSAM 46.02 16.87
ORISSA 41.47 14.56
WB 41.45 14.24
AP 40.49 13.35
HP 39.64 13.05
INDIA 43.80 15.93
22

Per capita expenditure analysis is proved to be better indicator in gauging the real benefits
reaching the children in the state. We have learned that the share of Child Budget in Total State
Budget of MP is one of the highest among seven states; however the per capita expenditure
analysis depicts exactly the opposite picture.
If count on average for the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09, then per head expenditure of
the state budget is just Rs 4555 in MPwhich is lowest among other states.The expenditure
on per child stands at is just Rs 1566, which is little higher than UP . Himachal Pradesh is
spending highest (Rs 5126) on per child, which is about three times greater MP. In case of Assam
and HP per child spending is higher than that of MP both in terms of per capita state budget and
per capita child budget. It is obvious too in the sense that both the states falls in the category of
north east and hilly state. Thus are attracting high central assistance. However, MP is
performing poorly compared toAP, Orissa and WB in non-special category states.
Per head expenditure for different sectors of the child budget, MP is securing the rank 5 or low
among seven states. The situation is particularly worst in the sectors like child health and child
protection where state is spending a miniscule amount on every child compared to other states.

23

Section 4 : Detailed analysis of individual sectors in
Child Budgeting
4.1 Child Development
The focus of child development sector is on children in the age group of 0-6. According to the
census 2001, the age group of 0-6 years constitutes nearly 17 per cent of the population of
Madhya Pradesh.
Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS)
ICDS is one of the major schemes in the country and isunder implementation since the
Fifth Five year Plan to improve nutritional and health status of children in the age group
of up to six years, for laying foundation for proper psychological, physical and social
development of child, reducing the incidence of mortality , malnutrition and school
dropouts and enhancing the capability of mother to look after the norm al health,
nutrition and health education.
4.1.1 Expenditure on child development
Spending in child development has increased by 4.2 times from 2001-02 to 2008-09. It stood at
Rs 165 crore in 2001-02 and reached Rs 693 crore in 2008-09 showing an increase of Rs 74 crore
per annum. However, the sector was particularly neglected between the period from 2002-
03 and 2005-06 when the expenditure remained more or less stagnant. Investment is nearly
doubled in 2007-08 owing to greater reporting exposure of malnutrition cases among the
children in the age group of 0-6 across the state and after the NFHS 3, GHI and various other
reports highlighted the rising malnutrition inthe state.
Child Development Expenditure (figs in Rs Crore)
357
693
640
262
229237
223
165
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Year
Amount
24

Among the different budgetary heads of child development, ICDS coupled with its nutritional
component, is the major programme. Although several other schemes are being implemented
for child development but their budgetary outlays are minuscule.
4.1.2 Variance in Child Development Schemes
The highlight of the child development sector is the high degree of variance observed in
different schemes and programmes. Greater extent of variance also indicates greater
inefficiency on the part of the government since it is not being able to spend the budgeted
amount, a fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has rightly pointed out in its
report that has been discussed in next section.
Table 4.1 : Variance in Child Development Schemes
Average percentage of highest under spending was observed in the head of Anganwadi (building
construction) at the rate of 81 per cent per annum. During 2001-02 to 2006-07, against a sum of
Rs 82 crore estimated, only Rs 23 crore was actually spent, leaving an unspent gap of Rs 59 crore.
Under spending in ICDS administration point out towards a large gap in recruitment of
implementing functionaries in the field.
Years
ICDS
(administration)
Bal
Bhawan
Anganwadi
building
construction
Nutrition
*
Construction
Women and
Child
Development
Other
Schemes
2001-02 -29.37 -39.56 -100.00 29.57 -4.70 -15.76
2002-03 -20.23 -38.18 -99.57 27.77 -7.99 -52.63
2003-04 -25.52 -41.64 -66.86 18.23 -19.19 -85.96
2004-05 -17.55 -17.44 -47.35 0.34 -30.38 -97.93
2005-06 -29.18 -15.90 -95.02 28.29 -64.77 -26.61
2006-07 -31.42 3.91 -77.85 -16.93 -55.87 -82.08
2007-08 10.14 2.20 90.41 -0.18 -2.08 0.00
* Nutrition here includes Minimum Needs Programme, Special Nutrition Scheme and National
Supplementary Nutrition Mission
25

4.1.3 Highlights by CAG in Civil PerformanceAudit Report, 2004-05 on ICDS
 Substantial and persistent savings of 22-31 per cent during the period 2000-05 was
observed mainly due to preparation of budget estimates on ad hoc basis without
obtaining estimates of requirement from field offices, parking of funds in civil deposits,
irregular/unauthorised re-appropriation showed poor budgetary and expenditure
control.
 A large number of posts remaining vacant and lack of proper manpower planning
adversely affected the implementation and monitoring of scheme.
 Actual expenditure on nutritional support during 2001 to 2005 was 42 per cent of the
requirement. Thus, inadequate provision of funds on nutrition had resulted in denial of
benefits to large number of identified beneficiaries.
 Nearly 52 -62 per cent children and 46-59 per cent expectant and nursing mothers were
denied supplementary nutrition though identified mainly due to insufficient budget
provision for nutrition with reference to beneficiaries identified, non-release/ delayed
release of budget provision to the districts.
 Non-establishment of AWCs as per norms with adequate basic facilities. Basic facilities
(safe drinking water) were not available in most of AWCs. Most of the AWCs were working
in rented buildings/ residence of workers where adequate and suitable space was not
available for proper physical and mental development of children. Good conditions for
cooking of dalia were not ensured in theAWCs.
 Besides, non-adherence of purchase rules and norms in supply to beneficiaries, avoidable
expenditure on fuel charges on take home rations were indicative of deficiencies in
management of the scheme.
 No internal audit was conducted during 2000-04 period. Internal audit was planned for 14
districts only in 2004-05, out which nine were conducted in March 2005, indicating the
wing is not effective in the department.
 Monitoring of the schools was to be done through Monthly Progress Report (MPR)
submitted by AWW that passes through various levels to the Commissioner to report to
GoI. It was noticed by CAG that the data reported through MPRs (about Crude Birth Rate,
Infant Mortality Rate and Maternal Mortality Rate) were not reviewed and analyzed at any
level. Supervision was also deficient.
Fate of Children in India
One million children born in India are dying every year even before they become 28 days
old. A child born in India is 14 times more likely to die during the first 28 days than one
born in the US or UK.
Despite an increase in institutional deliveries, 60 per cent of pregnant women still
deliver their babies at home. In India more than two-thirds of all maternal deaths occur
26

in a handful of states- UP , Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jharkand, Orissa, MP , Chattisgarh,
Rajasthan andAssam.
Some 40 per cent of the world's child marriages take place in India, India's high rate of
child marriage is a major reason for the large number of maternal and infant deaths.
Source: UNICEF State of World's Children Report- 2009
4.2 Child Health
4.2.1 Expenditure on Child Health
As discussed in the previous sections a very small amount is being spent in the sector of child
heath, compared to education and development, which indicates that the sector is not a
priority of the state government.Spending in child health though showing an increasing, trend
in expenditure it is fluctuating wildly and remains very low in terms of magnitude.
About 74.1 per cent of children in the 0-5 age group are anemic in Madhya Pradesh, just
behind Bihar (78 per cent), while the national average of 69.5 per cent.
The Lok Sabha was informed by Health Minister on 22 July 2009.
4.2.2 Variance in Child Health Schemes
Table 4.2 : Variance in Child Health Schemes and Programmes
Hospital
and
Dispensari
es
Training
(Women
health
worker and
daais)
Ayushmati
Scheme
Maternity BCG
2001-02 33.79 -40.95 -40.07 -84.26 -12.94
2002-03 50.25 -13.51 -24.85 -84.62 4.36
2003-04 670.29 18.11 -49.95 -99.99 -8.19
2004-05 -55.53 -14.83 -11.07 -59.20 -19.25
2005-06 -41.20 54.85 -28.34 -82.60 90.05
2006-07 72.12 -69.90 -17.47 -97.40 -34.87
2007-08 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
27

Like the development sector, child health sector also shows greater variance. Among the
different components of child health, hospital and dispensaries taking care of pregnant women
and children, Ayushmati (medical facilities to women and girl child) schemes and maternity
facilities to pregnant women show a high degree of variation over the years.
According to Amartya Sen, 'capability' refers to the range of options a person has to
choose from; in deciding the kind of life he values living. Hence, poverty is essentially a
situation of capability deprivation and not just the impoverished state a person is living
in. It has been emphasized that education and health are two important tools to achieve
the target of a developed society . Unfortunately, where the importance laid upon
elementary education and health facilities has been increasing in the contemporary
world, it has been neglected in India.
Source:
4.2.3 Performance on Child Development and Child H ealth related indicators V is-à- vis
expenditure
Table 4.3 : Indicators on Child Health and Development
 MP is the worst performer on the indicators like number of children wasted and
underweight in 0-3 year age group and is just next to below UP in terms of highest infant
mortality rate.
 On other child health and development-related indicators too, its performance is not
really the satisfactory one.
http://theviewspaper.net/100-literacy-in-india-a-distant-dream/
States
% of
Children
of 12-23
months
who
receive
d all
vaccines
% of
Stunted
Children
0-3
years
% of
Wasted
children
(0-3
years))
% of
Under
weight
childr
en (0-
3
years)
% of
Infant
Mortali
ty rate
(per
1000
live
births)
% of
children
getting
ante-
natal
care
(last 3
years)
Juveni
le Sex
Ratio
(0-6) *
Fertilit
y Rate
(in per
cent)
% of
Institut
ional
Deliver
ies
(last 3
years)
AP 46 (3) 34 (3) 13 (1) 37 (2) 53 (3) 96 (1) 964(1) 1.8 (1) 69 (1)
Assam 32 (6) 35 (6) 13 (1) 40 (3) 66 (5) 71 (6) 964 (1) 2.4 (4) 23 (6)
HP 74 (1) 27 (1) 19 (5) 36 (1) 36 (1) 90 (3) 897 (7) 1.9 (2) 45 (2)
MP 40 (4) 40 (5) 33 (7) 60 (7) 70 (6) 81 (5)
933
(5) 3.1 (6) 30 (5)
Orissa 52 (5) 38 (5) 18 (4) 44 (4) 65 (4) 87 (4) 950 (4) 2.4 (4) 39 (4)
UP 23 (2) 46 (7) 13 (1) 47 (6) 73 (7) 67 (7) 915 (6) 3.8 (7) 22 (7)
WB 64 (7) 33 (2) 19 (5) 44 (4) 48 (2) 93 (2) 963 (3) 2.3 (3) 43 (3)
India 44 38 19 46 57 77 927 2.7 41
Source: NFHS 3, * Census 2001 Note: Figs in bracket indicates ranking
28

Table 4.4 : Comparison of Expenditure on Child Health and Child Develo pment in seven
States
It's not surprising that MP's performance in child health an d child development is so
appalling in the light of miniscule expenditure being incurred on the important sectors.
4.3 Child Education
4.3.1 Expenditure on Child Education
Spending on child education has been highest among all the sectors, increased by nearly 2.77
times from 2001-02 to 2008-09. It was Rs 2,166 crore in 2001-02 and reached Rs 6,006 crore in
the year 2008-09 with an annual increase by Rs 536 crore on an average.
Within the child education sector , the sub component of elementary education is attracting the
maximum expenditure (75.79 per cent), secondary education (14.88 per cent), technical
education (1.32 per cent). There is another expenditure head that is overlapping the
elementary and secondary education and it constitutes about 8 per cent of the total child
education budget. This expenditure includes spending on various scholarships, hostels and
th th
ashramshala facilities that covers class 6 to 12 education and it is mainly incurred under the
heads of Tribal Sub Plan (TSP), Scheduled Caste Sub Plan (SCP) and by SC ST OBC Welfare
department.
States
Ranking on
Child health
and
development
Child Health and Child
Development together
as per cent of BfC
Expenditure
Ranking for
Child health
and Child
Development
HP 1 4.08 7
AP 2 15.56 1
WB 3 10.10 6
Orissa 4 14.35 2
Assam 5 10.79 4
MP 6 10.67 5
UP 7 13.07 3
Child Education Expenditure (Figs in Rs Crore)
6006
5081
4302
3736
3210
2472
2646
2166
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Year
Amount
29

Analyzing the subcomponents critically, we find that maximum efforts so far have been
concentrated in providing schooling and infrastructure related facilities. On an average,
expenditure on this is about 57 per cent of total spending on school education. The little
expenditure being incurred on decentralization of education through assistance given to
local bodies this is just 12.88 per cent. Also one of the very important elements ofteacher
training has remained neglected with only a 0.58 per cent share.
Most developed countries in the world like the US, UK and France spend around 6-7 per
cent of their national budget for public education and health , while India allocates
around 3 per cent for education and around 1per cent for health.
Source:
Dipankar Majumdar, Director, Child Rights and You (CRY), Times of India, 13 July 2009.
4.3.2 Performance on education indicators vis-à-vis expenditure
Here different states are compared on the basis of availability of various infrastructure facilities
in Education and expenditure on child education.
a. School infrastructure facilities
Table 4.5 : School infrastructure Facilities
 Among the seven states condition of classrooms is comparatively better in MP than other
states MP has the best classrooms. It also has a good number of schools with pucca
building, coming right after topper UP, and an adequate number of schools with drinking
water facility, third after UP and Himachal.
States
Per
cent of
Single
Class
Room
Schools
per
cent of
Schools
with
Girls
Toilet
per cent
of Schools
with
Drinking
Water
Facility
Student
Classroom
Ratio
(SCR)
per
cent of
Good
Conditio
n Class
Rooms
per cent of
Pucca
School
AP 24.8 (6) 40.5 (2) 77.6 (6) 29 (2) 78.77 (3) 38.11 (5)
Assam 52.6 (7) 9.6 (7) 70.6 (7) 45 (4) 28.58 (7) 32.94 (6)
HP 4.7 (2) 29.7 (3) 88.7 (2) 18 (1) 65.68 (4) 67.07 (3)
MP 9.4 (4) 21.4 (4) 84.7 (3) 52 (6)
83.65
(1) 76.88 (2)
Orissa 6.7 (3) 12.4 (6) 82.8 (5) 35 (3) 55.34 (5) 22.39 (7)
UP 1 (1) 69.4 (1) 94.9 (1) 48 (5) 78.94 (2) 96.14 (1)
WB 15 (5) 20.6 (5) 83 (4) 55 (7) 47.92 (6) 58.29 (4)
All India
average 8.14 37.12 81.39 33.77 70.06 65.02
Source: District Information System Education, Report 2006-07
30

 However, on the other indicators of percentage of Single Class Room Schools and Schools
with Girls Toilet, MP's performance is below average. In terms of Student Classroom Ratio
(SCR), it is ranked lower on the ladder among seven states.
b. Status of teachers in Government schools
Table 4.6 : Status ofTeachers in Government Schools
 As evident from the table, the status of teachers in government schools in MP is really
poor, especially compared to the state of affairs in even poor states such as Uttar Pradesh.
It also has the maximum number of single teacher schools and the fewest number of
teachers less than three per government school.
 While government has frozen the recruitment of regular teachers, all recruitments are in
the form of contract/Para teachers at very low salaries indicating poor quality of human
resources engaged in delivering the sector
 On other indicators as well like, average number of teachers per school, proportion of
trained teacher, per cent of single teacher schools and pupil teacher ratio (PTR), MP is at
th
not above 5 rank or below among seven states.
 In terms of infrastructure facilities MP ranks third among seven states where work on
budget for children has been carried out.
 While MP is ranked third in terms of share of education expenditure in the total child
budget, it's ranked at the bottom in teaching facilities. This is alarming because lack of
adequate number of teachers has direct impact on students' learning and the output and
outcomes of the government-run education system.
31

Table 4.7 : Compar ative Ranking of school infr astructure, status of teac hers and
expenditure on child education
The reason for UP and HP doing so well in practically all indicators of education is that they both
emphasize on infrastructure facilities and spend a lot on making provision for adequate number
of professionally qualified teachers.
c. Output indicators- Enrollment, Retention, Drop out, Completion
Table 4.8 : Enrollment and Retention Rate
The retention rate in MP is highest among the all seven states and also much higher than the
Indian average (79.25 percent). However, the high retention does not reflect into achievement
level of learnes in the state, as evident from the findings of various achievement studies and
surveys being carried out nationally. However, the drop out rate in primary and upper primary is
13.95 and 13.24 percent respectively. The completion rate in primary and upper primary level is
71.3 and 68.1 percent respectively in 2008-09, according to Rajya Shiksha Kendra, Bhopal. Thus
it clearly shows that the heavy expenditure on child education are not getting really translated
into desired outcomes in Madhya Pradesh.
States Infrastructure
Status of
Teacher
Child Education as
per cent of BfC
Education (in BfC)
Expenditure
Ranking
UP 1 3 86.74 5
HP 2 2 95.48 1
MP 3 7 89.20 3
AP 4 1 83.28 7
Orissa 5 4 85.25 6
WB 6 5 89.66 2
Assam 7 6 89.09 4
Percentage of Enrollment in Govt.
Schools
Retention Rate Primary
AP 65 72.03
Assam 84 71.87
HP 81 93.84
MP 73 95.31
Orissa 94 71.74
UP 72 74.48
WB 65 61.39
India average 72 79.25
Source : DIES report 2006-07
32

4.4 Child Protection
4.4.1 Expenditure on child protection
Child Protection is mainly about programmes related to juvenile justice and prevention and
rehabilitation of child labour. In terms of budgetary investment, this sector has been the silent
victim of gross negligence over the years. On an average, annual spending in this sector is Rs
4.91 crore only.
Going to school opens up new avenues and opportunities with gi rls learning to think,
explore, discover, question and acquire knowledge. Besides, it also delays an early
marriage. Only if all working children are in school can it lead to equity and jus tice,
further deepening the foundation of our democracy.
Source: Education is key to abolish child labour, says Shantha Sinha, chairperson, NCPCR,
The Times of India, 15 June 2009
Child Protection Expenditure ( Figs in Rs Crore)
7.377.23
5.01
4.69
3.943.91
3.62
3.49
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Year
Amount
33

4.4.2 Performance on Child Protection indicators Vis-à-vis expenditure
Table 4.9 : Crime against Children in MP
Table 4.10: Comparison of Crime against Children and Child Protection Expenditure
Acombined analysis of the two tables above reveals following facts:
 In terms of number of crimes committed against children, MP seems to be taking the
leadand is ahead of all the other six states, in terms of juvenile crime and thenumber of
childrenapprehended or arrested and sent to court, the state is far ahead of the rest.
 The state also seems to be having the maximum number of rape victims.
 Looking at MP's dismal performance in terms of juvenile justice indicators, it seems that
the state is among the worst places in India for children seeking protection.
 The state's spending on child protection too is the second lowest among seven states,
which could be reason enough for such a poor state of affairs.

States
0-18
murder
victim
0-18
victims
of
abducti
on and
kidnapp
ing
0-18
victim
of rape
%age of
Crimes
Committe
d Against
Children
to total
crime
Number
of
Juveniles
Apprehen
ded
Under IPC
Crimes
Number
of
Juveniles
Arrested
& Send to
Courts
Juveniles
Delinquen
cy Under
Arm Act
Juveniles
Delinquen
cy Under
Gambling
Act
Juveniles
Delinquen
cy Under
Excise Act
AP 108 (3) 610 (2) 4 (3) 7.3 (3) 1801 (2) 1953 (2) 2 (3) 0 (3) 8 (3)
Assam 2 (7) 29 (7) 1 (5) 0.8 (6) 1155 (3) 1155 (3) 0 (6) 0 (3) 0 (4)
HP 10 (6) 95 (4) 1 (5) 0.7 (7) 145 (6) 145 (6) 0 (6) 0 (3) 0 (4)
MP 160 (2) 304 (3) 31 (1) 21 (1) 6407 (1) 7350 (1) 81 (1) 261 (1) 208 (1)
Orissa 33 (4) 68 (6) 0 (8) 1 (5) 627 (4) 658 (4) 1 (4) 2 (2) 21 (2)
UP 397 (1) 1041 (1) 1 (5) 11 (2) 414 (5) 427 (5) 6 (2) 0 (3) 0 (4)
WB 15 (5) 88 (5) 8 (2) 1.8 (4) 100 (7) 145 (6) 1 (4) 0 (3) 0 (4)
India
average 50 195 5 2 851 986 8 22 15
Source : Crime in India, National Crime Record Bureau, Annual Publication 2007
Crime against per cent of Protection Protection (CB)
Children Expenditure (CB) Expenditure Ranking
MP 1 0.13 6
AP 2 0.99 2
UP 3 0.19 5
Orissa 4 0.40 3
WB 5 0.24 4
Assam 6 0.12 7
HP 7 0.44 2
34

Section 5 : Key Findings
1) MP is performing poorly on not only on the count of HDI but also in terms of social spending.
Interestingly, the states like Bihar, Assam and UP that are ranked below MP on HDI ranking
are spending more on the social sector than that of Madhya Pradesh.
2) Spending on children in MP is the highest among seven states where child budgeting
exercise has been undertaken. But these huge spending are not translating into desired
outcomes as revealed through performance on outcome indicators for various. Child
related sectors like development, health, education and protection.
3) On an average during 2004-05 to 2008-09 the share of child budget in the total state budget
of M.P. is 15.94 percent. However, one can not ignore the fact that state's spending is
miniscule just one third compared to its children population at around 46 percent.
4) In monetary terms, expenditure on children in the state budget has increased steadily over
the years from Rs 2343 crore in 2001-02 to Rs 6794 crore in 2008-09 with average per annum
spending of Rs 4095 crore. On average the year on year increase in the quantum of child
budget is Rs 620 crore per annum. However, inability to translate these increasing outlays
into better performance indicators in terms of child welfare is the real challenge before
the State Government, as evident from the situation analysis of status of children in
Madhya Pradesh.
5) MP's child budget stands at 4.04 per cent of the NSDP (average for 2004-05 to 2008-09)
again it is low in the light of demand for 6% of GDP allocation for child education and 3
percent for child health, the present allocations in all the four sector taken together is very
miniscule Over a period of four years the increase is juts one percentage point from 3.52
per cent in 2004-05 to 4.56 per cent in 2008-09. Three states Assam, HP and UP are
spending more of it's NSDP on children than MP, while AP, Orissa and WB are fairing poorly
compare to MP.
6) MP is spending 13.5 percent of its total receipts and 19.8 percnet of its reveneue receipts
on the children in the state
7) In terms of per capita expenditure, the state government is spending Rs 1,338 on every
child every year in MP (for nine years average from 2001-02 to 2008-09). Among different
sectors, education is attracting the maximum expenditure (Rs 1212), followed by
development (Rs 299), while faring the worst are child heath (Rs10.27) and protection
sectors (Rs1.61).
8) Per head expenditure for different sectors of the child budget, MP is securing the rank 5or
low among seven states. The situation is particularly worst in the sectors like child health
and child protection where state is spending a miniscule amount on every child compared
to other states.
35

9) The average sectoral allocation during 2001-02 to 2008-09 shows that education receives
about 91 percent in the total budget for children. The other sectors like development,
health and protection are receiving 8.18, 0.71 and 0.12 percent respectively.
10) In the Development Sector expenditure, schemes like Mangal Diwas, Ladli Lakshmi Yojana,
Chalit Shishu Ghar, Jhula Ghar Yojana, Project Shaktiman, Balika Samriddhi Yojana and
Kishor Kalyan Nidhi Yojana, are collectively contributing merely on an average of 2.48
percent per annum. It implies that government has announced number of schemes for a
showoff but allocation of the amount in these schemes is very low.
11) The main contributors in Development Sector average expenditure during 2001-02 to 2008-
09 are ICDS by 57.26 percent and Nutrition Programme (Minimum Need Programme Special
Nutrition Scheme and National Supplementary Nutrition Mission) by 35.34 percent. These
two are contributing about 93 percent expenditure of the Development Sector. Other
schemes and programmes are receiving just 7 percent.
12) Infant mortality in Madhya Pradesh, at 70 deaths per 1,000 live births, is higher than in any
other state except Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Despite improvements in the coverage
of antenatal care for pregnant mothers, only 4 in 10 women in Madhya Pradesh received at
least three antenatal care visits for their last birth in the past five years. Fertility rate in
Madhya Pradesh is much higher than the National. Only 1 out of 4 children in Madhya
Pradesh who were born in the past five years were delivered in a health facility. But the
Health sector in total child budget is receiving just 0.71 percent.
13) The average allocation during 2001-02 to 2008-09 within various sub sectors of education
shows that elementary education is receiving highest share by 76 percent and technical
education is with lowest of 1.32 percent. The other sectors; secondary education and
overlapping expenditures of elementary and secondary are receiving merely 15, and 8
percent respectively.
14) Child Protection is the duty of the state government but Madhya Pradesh reported 21.0%
(4,290 out of 20,410) of total crimes committed against children in the country that is
Highest in all states. Madhya Pradesh has reported the highest number of child rap cases
(1,043). Madhya Pradesh with (5,089) have reported highest incidence of juvenile crimes
under IPC reported in the country. 'Gambling Act' involving juveniles, 33.5% cases were
reported from Madhya Pradesh, which was highest in all states. Madhya Pradesh reported
the highest number of juveniles arrested (6,407) under IPC crimes. But the budget for child
protection is mere 0.12 percent of the total child budget.
15) The variance ofActual from the Budgeted is more or less acceptable at around 5 percent in
the State Expenditure and Social Sector Expenditure. However it spills over beyond the
permissible limits in case of overall Child Budget and its components including child
education, child development, child health and child protection.
36

16) In terms of infrastructure facilities in education MP ranks third among seven states where
work on budget for children has been carried out. While MP is ranked third in terms of share
of education expenditure in the total child budget, it's ranked at the bottom in teaching
facilities. This is alarming because lack of teaching facilities has direct impact on students'
learning and the output and outcomes of the government-run education system.
th
17) In the health and development indicators MP is ranking 6 among seven states where work
th
on budget for children has been carried out. While MP is ranked 5 in terms of share of
health expenditure in the total child budget.
18) In terms of number of crimes committed against children, MP seems to be taking the lead.
It is ahead of all the other six states. The state's spending on child protection too is the
second lowest (just 0.13 percent per anum (average 2004-05 to 2008-09) of the total child
budget) among seven states. The slow pace of expenditure on child protection by the state
government could be reason enough for such a poor state of affairs.

37

Section 6 : Conclusion and advocacy points
• On an average during the period from 2004-OS to 2008-09 the share of child budget in the
total state budget of M.P. is 15.94 percent. However, one can not ignore the fact that
state's spending is miniscule just one third compared to its children population at around
46 percent.
• Though Madhya Pradesh is spending higher proportion of its state budget on children
compared to other states like UP, HP, AP, Orrissa, West Bengal, Assam where child budget
analysis exercise has been undertaken, the major loophole observed through the fact that
these huge spendings are not translating into the desired outcomes as revealed through
performance on outcome indicators.
• Per capita spending on the other hand reveals totally constrast picture, where per head
spending of the state budget in MP is the second lowest among other state at Rs 4555.
Similarly, per child expenditure stands at just Rs 1566, a little higher than UP. Himachal
Pradesh is spending three times greater amount compared to Madhya Pradesh. so also the
per child spending in case of Assam and HP is better than that of Madhya Pradesh both in
terms of per capita spending through state budget and per child expenditure.
• Madhya Pradesh is positioned at lower ends if one goes by the per child expenditure for
different sector for the period 2004-OS to 2008-09. It is sending Rs 1395 on child education
(6`" position), Rs 404 on child development (Sr position), Rs 15.02 on child health (6t''
position) and Rs 1.94 on child protection (7`" position) on every child every year.
• Extendig the analyis for little longer period of time covering nine years average (from
2001-02 to 2008-09), reveals that the state government is spending Rs 1,338 per child every
year in Madhya Pradesh. Among different sectors, clearly education is attracting the
maximum expenditure (Rs 1212), followed by development (Rs 299), while faring the worst
are child heath (Rs10.27) and protection sectors (Rs1.61).
• One has to also consider the fact that approximately, 35 percent of the state's population is
comprised of marginalized communities including SCs (15.2%) and STs (20.3%). Thus it
needed for the state government to spend greater amounts on welfare of these
communities as they are lagging far behind on different outcome indicators compared to
other communities.
• Similarly, the scattered geographical spread of the state, coupled with high cost of service
delivery of schemes owing to low population density and poor performing state's economy
in past five years; cries for additional investment than the current levels. It is therefore
highly essential to uplift the state's performance on child related indicators to be at par
with basic minimum standards.
• Sectoral composition in child budget is not justified; the child education sector is receiving
the highest share which is about 91 percent (average 2001-2002 to 200809), while outcome
indicators indicates that MP is better in infrastructure facilities and retention rate among
the seven states, but in teaching facilities, status of teachers including adequate number
38

and professionally qualification and outcome indicators are showing dismal picture.
• While the state government has frozen the recruitment of regular teachers, all
recruitments are in the form of contract/Para teachers, that is happening at a very low
salaries, but still in the indicators like, Average Number of teacher per Govt. School, Govt.
regular trained teacher, per cent of Single Teacher Schools and Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR),
MP is not above 5th rank among seven states. So it is very essential to the government to
increase the expenditure in these facilities to improve the quality of education in the
state.
• Other sectors in the child budget like development, health and protection have been
totally neglected and on an average collectively receive just 9 percent of the total child
budget. So is its performance on child development and child health related indicators is
poor.
• Analysis of quality of expenditure in terms of different components (like salaries,
administrative expenditure, direct expenditure on beneficiaries etc) for schemes and
programmes under various departments needs to be explored further whether or not and
how the children are getting benefited out of such spending. This is a matter of great
concern in case of those departments that are incurring heavy expenditure on children like
school education.
• Also it would be very much pertinent that what proportion of budgets for children is being
spent on the marginalized groups including SC and ST?
The analysis of child budget exercise clearly point out the fact that government spending is
not balanced one as far as spending on children is concerned. Overall government spending is
not turning the situation from worst to better. On one hand government is spending is
very high amount in the sector like education whereas the other important sectors like child pay
a development, child health and child protection has remained totally neglected.
Thus, it would be interesting to know in case of high spending, where exactly we are putting the
money and what is the quality of expenditure in terms of outcomes? Because if take a look at
education sector number of personnel the engaged is very high compared to health sector. But
the quality of human resources in terms of professional capabilities is poor in education sector
and also we are investing miser amount on them without taking into consideration the quality of
life. On the other hand, prime sectors like child development and child health where there is an
urgent need of greater human resources and basic facilities we are not providing enough
attention through budgetary allocations that commensurate the basic needs.
It is equally important to scrutinize how government in going to protect the right of children as
ratified and UNCRC, with such indequate budgetary spending on one hand and constantly
deteriorating child related performance indicators on the other hand.

39

40
Sr. Description of Scheme/ Name of the Department Targeted at Girls
No. Programme in Childdren
Child Development (C)/Women
Children (WC)/
Others and
Children (OC)
1 ’Ê‹ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ‚¥SÕÊ•Ê¥ ∑§Ê •ŸÈŒÊŸ Department of Panchayat and Rural Development C
2 ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ‡ÊÊ‹Ê•Ù¥ ◊¥ ¿UÊòÊÊ•Ù¥ ∑§ ÷Êß¸U Department of Panchayat and Rural Development C
’„UŸÙ¥ ∑§ Á‹ÿ ¤ÊÍ‹ÊÉÊ⁄U ∑§Ë SÕÊ¬ŸÊ
3 ãÿÍŸÃ◊ •Êfl‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ ∑§Êÿ¸∑˝§◊ Áfl‡Ê· Department of Panchayat and Rural Development WC
¬Ù·áÊ •Ê„UÊ⁄U ÿÙ¡ŸÊ
4 ∞∑§Ë∑Î§Ã ’Ê‹ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ‚flÊ∞¥ Department of Public Health and Family Welfare C
5 ◊Á„U‹Ê ∞fl¢ ’Ê‹ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ∑§Ë ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ Department of Public Works WC
‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥ ∑§ ⁄Uπ-⁄UπÊfl
6 øÁ‹Ã Á‡Ê‡ÊÈÉÊ⁄U Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
7 Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ÁŸÁœ ÿÙ¡ŸÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
8 ’Ê‹ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù •ŸÈŒÊŸ, Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare OC
’ìÊÙ¥ ∑§Ë Œπ÷Ê‹ ‚È⁄UˇÊÊ, Áfl∑§‹Ê¢ª
∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ÃÕÊ •ŸÊÕ ’Ê‹∑§Ù¥ ∑§Ù
âãUæØÌæ
9 ÕæÜ ÖßÙ · è SÍæÂÙæ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
10 ’Ê‹ •Ê°ªŸflÊ«∏Ë ‚„UÊÁÿ∑§Ê•Ê¥ ∑§Ê πÊl Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC
√ÿflSÕÊ ∑§ ÁflÃ⁄UáÊ „UÃÈ ¬˝Êà‚Ê„UÊŸ
11 ◊Á„U‹Ê ∞fl¢ ’Ê‹ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ „UÃÈ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC
çßçßÏ ¥ÙéÎæÙ
12 ¬˝Ê¡Ä≈U ‡ÊÁQ§◊ÊŸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
13 •Ê°ªŸflÊÁ«∏ÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ‚ÈäÊÊ⁄U ∞fl¥ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC
14 •Ê°ªŸ’Ê«∏Ë ∑§ãŒ˝Ê¥ ∑§ Á‹ÿ ÷flŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC
15 ’Ê‹ ÁŸ∑§ÃŸÙ¥ ∑§Ê ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
Annexure 1:
Department wise List of Schemes/Programmes used in
Child Budget Analysis of Madhya Pradesh from
2001-02 to 2008-09

16 ◊Á„U‹Ê ’Ê‹ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ∑§ ÷flŸÊ¥ ∑§Ê ⁄Uπ-⁄UπÊfl Department of Women and Child Development WC
17 ◊Á„U‹Ê ∞fl¢ ’Ê‹ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ‚¢øÊ‹ŸÊ‹ÿ Department of Women and Child Development WC
18 ’Ê‹ ÷flŸ ÷Ê¬Ê‹ ◊¥ ’ìÊÊ¥ ∑§Ë ŸÒ‚Áª¸∑§ Department of Women and Child Development C
ˇÊ◊ÃÊ•Ê¥ •ÊÒ⁄U ©UŸ∑§Ë Á∑˝§ÿÊà◊∑§ÃÊ ¬˝flÎÁÃÿÊ¥
·¤æ çß·¤æâ
19 ∞∑§Ë∑Î§Ã ‚flÊ ÿÙ¡ŸÊ Department of Women and Child Development C
(ÁflŒ‡ÊË ‚„UÊÿÃÊ •ãÃª¸Ã ÿÙ¡ŸÊ)
20 ∞∑§Ë∑Î§Ã ’Ê‹ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ‚flÊ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ Department of Women and Child Development C
•¢Ãª¸Ã •Ê¢ªŸflÊ«UË ∑§Êÿ¸∑§ÃÊ¸•Ù¥ ∑§Ù ¬˝Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ
(ÁflŒ‡ÊË ‚„UÊÿÃÊ •ãÃª¸Ã ÿÙ¡ŸÊ)
21 ∞∑§Ë∑Î§Ã ’Ê‹ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ‚flÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ê Department of Women and Child Development C
¬Á⁄UÁflˇÊáÊ (ÁflŒ‡ÊË ‚„UÊÿÃÊ •ãÃª¸Ã ÿÊ¡ŸÊ)
22 ‚ÍøŸÊ ¬˝ılÙÁª∑§ ‚ ‚¢’¢ÁœÃ ∑§Êÿ¸ Department of Women and Child Development WC
23 ∞∑§Ë∑Î§Ã ’Ê‹ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ‚flÊ ÿÙ¡ŸÊ Department of Women and Child Development C
24 ∞∑§Ë∑Î§Ã ’Ê‹ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ‚flÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ê ¬Á⁄UflËˇÊáÊ Department of Women and Child Development C
25 ∞∑§Ë∑Î§Ã ’Ê‹ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ‚flÊ ÿÙ¡ŸÊ ∑§ Department of Women and Child Development C
•ãÃª¸Ã •Ê¢ªŸflÊ«∏UË ∑§Êÿ¸∑§ÃÊ¸•Ù¥ ∑§Ù ¬˝Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ
26 Á∑ ‡ÊÙ⁄UË ‡ÊÁQ§ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ Department of Women and Child Development C G
27 ¤ÊÍ‹ÊÉÊ⁄U ÿÙ¡ŸÊ Department of Women and Child Development C
28 ‹Ê«∏U‹Ë ‹ˇ◊Ë ÿÙ¡ŸÊ Department of Women and Child Development C G
29 ’ÊÁ‹∑§Ê ‚◊ÎÁh ÿÙ¡ŸÊ Department of Women and Child Development C G
30 ⁄UÊCÔ˛UËÿ ¬Í⁄U∑§ ¬Ù·áÊ •Ê„UÊ⁄U Á◊‡ÊŸ Department of Women and Child Development WC
31 ‚Ë.«UË.¬Ë.•Ù. •ÊÁ»§‚ ∑§◊ Department of Women and Child Development WC
ªÙ«UÊ©UŸ ∑§Ê ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ
32 ‚¢øÊ‹ŸÊ‹ÿ ◊Á„U‹Ê ’Ê‹ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ∑§Ê Department of Women and Child Development WC
÷flŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ
33 ◊¢ª‹ ÁŒfl‚ Department of Women and Child Development WC G
34 ôÊÊŸ ¬˝’¢œŸ ∞fl¢ ‚È‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§ãº˝ Department of Women and Child Development WC
35 ‚¢øÊ⁄U⁄UáÊ ŸËÁÃ Department of Women and Child Development WC
41

42
Child Health (C)/Women
Children (WC)/
Others and
Children (OC)
1 øÊøÊ Ÿ„UM§ ’Ê‹ ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê‹ÿ ∞fl¢ Department of Medical Education C
•ŸÈ‚¢œÊŸ ∑§ãº˝, ßãŒı⁄U (◊Í‹÷ÍÃ ‚flÊÿ¥)
2 âéËÌæçÙØæ ÁÙæÙæ ¥SÂÌæÜ, ÖôÂæÜ Department of Medical Education WC
3 ◊Á„U‹Ê SflÊSâÿ ∑§Êÿ¸∑§ÃÊ¸ ¬˝Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ ∑§ãŒ˝ Department of Medical Education WC
4 ¬˝‚ÍÁÃ •ı⁄U Á‡Ê‡ÊÈ Department of Public Health and Family Welfare WC
5 Á¡‹Ê SÃ⁄U ¬˝‚flÙûÊ⁄U ∑§ãº˝ Department of Public Health and Family Welfare WC
6 ‡Ê‡ÊÈ ¡ËflûÊÊ ∞fl¢ ‚È⁄UÁˇÊÃ ◊ÊÃÎàfl ∑§Êÿ¸∑˝§◊ Department of Public Health and Family Welfare WC
7 ŒÊßUÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ Department of Public Health and Family Welfare WC
8 ◊Á„U‹Ê SflÊSâÿ ∑§Êÿ¸∑§ÃÊ¸•Ù¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ Department of Public Health and Family Welfare WC
9 Õè.âè.Áè. ÅUè·¤æ ¥çÖØæÙ Department of Public Health and Family Welfare C
10 ª˝Ê◊ËáÊ ◊Á„U‹Ê•Ù/’ÊÁ‹∑§Ê•Ù ∑§ Á‹ÿ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC
Áfl‡Ê· ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê ‚ÈÁflœÊÿ¥
(•ÊÿÈc◊ÃË ÿÙ¡ŸÊ)
11 ⁄UÊC˛UËÿ SflÊSâÿ ’Ë◊Ê ÿÊ¡ŸÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC
12 ⁄UÊC˛UËÿ •Ê°ªŸflÊ«∏Ë ∑§Êÿ¸∑§ÃÊ¸•Ê¥ ∑§Ê Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC
SflÊSâÿ ‚¥flÊ•Ê¥ „UÃÈ ¬˝Êà‚Ê„UŸ
13 ’Ê‹ ‚¥¡ËflŸ •Á÷ÿÊŸ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
14 •ÁÃ ª⁄UË’ ª÷¸flÃË ◊Á„U‹Ê•Ê¥ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC
∑§Ê ‚„UÊÿÃÊ
15 ⁄UÊ¡Ëfl ªÊ¢œË ‚Ê◊ÈŒÊÁÿ∑§ SflÊSâÿ Á◊‡ÊŸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare WC

43
Child Protection (C)/Women
Children (WC)/
Others and
Children (OC)
1 ’Ê‹üÊ◊ ¬˝∑§ÙDÔU ∑§Ê ª∆UŸ Department of Labour C
2 ’Ê‹ˇÊÿ ¬˝∑§ÙDÔU ∑§Ê ª∆UŸ Department of Labour C
3 ◊Á„U‹Ê ∞fl¥ ’Ê‹ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ „UÃÈ ◊Á„U‹ÊüÊ◊ Department of Labour WC
ÁŸÁ⁄UˇÊ∑§Ê¥ ∑§Ë ÁŸÿÈQ§Ë (∑§ãŒ˝ ¬˝flÁÃ¸Ã ÿÊ¡ŸÊ)
4 ’Ê‹ üÊÁ◊∑§ ‚fl¸ˇÊáÊ/¬ÈŸflÊ¸‚ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ Department of Labour C
5 •ŸÊÕ ’Ê‹∑§Ê¥ ∑§Ê ¬ÊÁ⁄UflÊÁ⁄U∑§ Department of Panchayat and
flÊÃÊfl⁄UáÊ ∑§Ë ‚ÈÁfläÊÊ Rural Development C
6 ÁŸ⁄UÊÁüÊÃ ’Ê‹ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù •ŸÈŒÊŸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
7 ‚◊Ê¡ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ - Áfl∑§‹Ê¢ª ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ∞fl¢ ◊Á„U‹Ê Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare OC
∞fl¢ ’Ê‹ ∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ∑§Êÿ¸⁄UÃ SflÁë¿U∑§ ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥
·¤ô ¥ÙéÎæÙ
8 ª¢÷Ë⁄U L§¬ ‚ ◊ÊŸÁ‚∑§ •Áfl∑§Á‚Ã ’ìÊÙ¥ ∑§Ê ªÎ„U Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
9 Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ‚ê¬˝ˇÊáÊ ªÎ„U Áfl‡Ê· ªÎ„U ∞fl¢ Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ªÎ„U Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
·¤æ ©UóæØÙ
10 Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ãÿÊÿ •ÁœÁŸÿ◊ v~}{ ∑§Ê Á∑˝§ÿÊãflÿŸ -
ÕæçÜ·¤æ ç·¤àæôÚU »ëãU ·¤è SÍæÂÙæ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
11 Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ’ÊÁ‹∑§Ê ãÿÊÿ •ÁœÁŸÿ◊ •ãÃª¸Ã ‚¢SÕÊ∞¢ Department of Social Welfare C G
12 ◊äÿ ¬˝Œ‡Ê Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ãÿÊÿ •ÁœÁŸÿ◊ ∑§ Department of Social Welfare C
•ãÃª¸Ã ‚¢SÕÊ∞¥
13 •ŸÈ⁄UˇÊáÊ ªÎ„U ’ÊÁ‹∑§Ê Department of Social Welfare C
14 Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ãÿÊÿ •ÁœÁŸÿ◊ v~}{ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U Department of Social Welfare C
∑§ÀÿÊáÊ ’Ù«¸U ∑§Ê ª∆UŸ
15 Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ãÿÊÿ •ÁœÁŸÿ◊ v~}{ ∑§ Á∑˝§ÿÊãflÿŸ „UÃÈ Department of Social Welfare C
◊ÈÅÿÊ‹ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ ∑§◊¸øÊ⁄UËflÎ¢Œ
16 ‚ê¬˝ˇÊáÊ ’ÊÁ‹∑§Ê ªÎ„U „UÃÈ Department of Social Welfare C G
17 Á∑§‡ÊÊ⁄U ãÿÊÿ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ v~}{ ∑§ •¥Ãª¸Ã Department of Social Welfare C
‚¥¬˝ˇÊáÊ ªÎ„UÊ¥ ∑§ ÷flŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ
18 Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U ãÿÊÿ •Áœ. v~}{ (w)∑§ •¢Ãª¸Ã Á∑§‡ÊÙ⁄U Department of Social Welfare C
ªÎ„U (’ÊÁ‹∑§Ê) ÷Ù¬Ê‹ ◊¥ Áfl∑§‹Ê¢ªÙ ∑§ Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ,
¬ÈŸflÊ¸‚ „UÃÈ •◊‹Ê
19 ÕæÜßæçÇ¸UØô´, àææâ·¤èØ ¥ÙæÍæÜØô´ ÌÍæ Department of Women and OC
∑È§D⁄UÙÁªÿÙ¥ ∑§ Á‹ÿ ªÎ„U Child Development

Child Education (C)/Women
Children (WC)/
Others and
Children (OC)
1 Á‚‹Êß¸ ∑§ãº˝Ù¥ ∑§Ê øÊ‹Í ∑§⁄UŸÊ Department of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Releif and C G
Rehabilitation
2 ¿UÊòÊflÎÁûÊÿÊ¥ ∑§Ë SÕÊ¬ŸÊ Department of Culture C
3 ◊äÿÊã„U ÷Ù¡Ÿ ‚Ê◊Uª˝Ë ¬Á⁄Ufl„UŸ Department of Fodd Civil Supply and Protection C
4 ∞ÖÿÍ∑§‡ÊŸ ÇÿÊ⁄¢U≈UË ÿÙ¡ŸÊ-◊Í‹÷ÍÃ Department of Panchayat and Rural Development C
ãÿÍŸÃ◊ ‚flÊ•Ù¥ ∑§ Á‹ÿ
5 Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ∑§Á◊¸ÿÙ¥ ∑§ flÃŸ ∑§ Á‹ÿ •ŸÈŒÊŸ Department of Panchayat and Rural Development C
◊Í‹÷ÍÃ ãÿÍŸÃ◊ ‚flÊ•Ù¥ ∑§ Á‹ÿ
6 ◊äÿÊã„U ÷Ê¡ŸÊ ¬Á⁄U·Œ Department of Panchayat and Rural Development C
7 •äÿÊ¬∑§/‚¥ÁflŒÊ ‡ÊÊ‹Ê Á‡ÊˇÊ∑§ ∑§ Department of Panchayat and Rural Development C
flÃŸ ∑§ Á‹ÿ •ŸÈŒÊŸ
8 ÁflôÊÊ¬Ÿ, Á’∑˝§Ë •ı⁄U ¬˝øÊ⁄U √ÿÿ Department of Public Relation C
9 ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ ‡ÊÊ‹Ê ÷flŸÙ¥ ∑§Ê ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ Department of Public Works C
10 ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ («UË.•Êß.ß¸.≈UË.) Department of Public Works C
11 ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ ÁfllÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ∑§Ê Department of Public Works C
⁄Uπ ⁄UπÊfl
12 ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ©UìÊÃ⁄U ÁfllÊ‹ÿ ∞fl¢ Department of Public Works C
◊„UÊÁfllÊ‹ÿ ÷flŸÙ¥ ∑§ ⁄Uπ ⁄UπÊfl
13 ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ¬˝ÊÕÁ◊∑§ ÁfllÊ‹ÿÙ¥ ∑§Ê Department of Public Works C
⁄Uπ⁄UπÊfl
14 ¬Ù‹Ë≈U∑§ÁŸ∑§ ÷flŸÙ¥ ∑§Ê ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ Department of Public Works OC
15 ¬˝Êÿ◊⁄UË ‡ÊÊ‹Ê ÷flŸÙ¥ ∑§Ê ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ- Department of Public Works C
◊Í‹÷ÍÃ ‚flÊ•Ù¥ ∑§ Á‹ÿ
16 «UÊß¸≈U ÷flŸÙ¥ ∑§Ê ⁄Uπ⁄UπÊfl Department of Public Works C
17 «UÊß¸U≈U ÷flŸÊ¥ ∑§ ¿UÊòÊÊflÊ‚Ê¥ ∑§Ê ⁄Uπ⁄UπÊfl Department of Public Works C
18 Ÿÿ „UÊß¸US∑Í§‹ πÊ‹ ¡ÊŸÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
19 ∞Áë¿U∑§ ‚¥SÕÊ•Ê¥ ∑§Ê ‡ÊÒˇÊÁáÊ∑§ •ÊÒ⁄U •ãÿ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
∑§ÀÿÊáÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ¬˝flÁûÊÿÊ¥ ∑§ Á‹∞ •ŸÈŒÊŸ
44

20 «UÊÚ. ’Ê’Ê ‚Ê„U’ •¥’«U∑§⁄U ¬Ê‹Ë≈U∑§ÁŸ∑§ ‚¥SÕÊ∞° Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare OC
21 ªáÊfl‡Ê ∑§Ê ¬˝ŒÊÿ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
22 »éL¤·é¤Ü çßlæÜØ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
23 ◊. ¬˝. •ÊflÊ‚Ëÿ ÁfllÊ‹ÿ ‚Á◊ÁÃ ∑§Ù Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
•ŸÈŒÊŸ (•ŸÈë¿UŒ w|z(v))
24 ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ◊á«U‹ ∑§Ù ‡ÊÈÀ∑§ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
25 ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ∑§ Á‹ÿ ª˝Ê◊ËáÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
¥õÚU àæãUÚUè çÙ·¤æØô´ ·¤ô ¥ÙéÎæÙ
26 ◊äÿ ¬˝Œ‡Ê •ÊflÊ‚Ëÿ ÁfllÊ‹ÿ ‚Á◊ÁÃ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
27 ◊äÿÊãUU„U ÷Ù¡Ÿ ∑§Êÿ¸∑˝§◊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
28 •ŸÈ‚ÍÁøÃ ¡ÊÁÃ/¡Ÿ¡ÊÁÃ ©UÛÊÃ Ã∑§ŸË∑§Ë ¬˝Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare OC
¬˝Êà‚Ê„UŸ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ
29 •‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ‡ÊÈÀ∑§ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
30 •ÊüÊ◊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
31 •ÊüÊ◊ / ¿UÊòÊÊflÊ‚Ù¥ ∑§Ê ⁄Uπ-⁄UπÊfl ÃÕÊ ‚Ê¡-‚Ö¡Ê Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
32 •ÊüÊ◊ •ı⁄U ¿UÊòÊÊflÊ‚ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
33 •ÊüÊ◊ ÃÕÊ ¿UÊòÊÊflÊ‚ ÷flŸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
34 •ÊüÊ◊Ù¥ / ¿UÊòÊÊflÊ‚Ù¥ ∑§Ê ‚ÈŒÎ…U∏Ë∑§⁄UáÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
35 •ÊÁŒflÊ‚Ë ’ÙÁ‹ÿÙ¥ ◊¥ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
36 •ÊÁŒflÊ‚Ë/•ŸÈ‚ÍÁøÃ ¡ÊÁÃ ∑§ ¿UÊòÊ/¿UÊòÊÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
ÁŒÑUË ◊¥ ©UìÊ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ∑§Ë ‚ÈÁflœÊÿ¥ ©U¬‹éœ ∑§⁄UÊŸ „UÃÈ
37 •ÊŒ‡Ê¸ ©UìÊÃ⁄U ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ ÁfllÊ‹ÿ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
38 •ÊflÊ‚Ëÿ ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥ ◊¥ ªÒ‚ ∑§ŸÄ‡ÊŸ ∑§Ê ¬˝ŒÊÿ (w|z(v) Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
39 •Áœ∑§Ê⁄UË/∑§◊¸øÊÁ⁄UÿÙ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
40 •Ù¬Ÿ S∑Í§‹ „UÃÈ •ŸÈŒÊŸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
41 •Sflë¿U œãœ ◊¥ ‹ª ‹ÙªÙ¥ ∑§ ’ìÊÙ¥ ∑§ Á‹∞ ¿UÊòÊflÎÁûÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
42 •ŸÈ‚ÍÁøÃ ¡ÊÁÃ / ¡Ÿ¡ÊÁÃ ∑§ ¿UÊòÊ / ¿UÊòÊÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
SÕÊß¸ ¡ÊÁÃ ¬˝◊ÊáÊ ¬òÊ ∑§Ê ¬˝ŒÊÿ
43 •ŸÈ‚ÍÁøÃ ¡ÊÁÃ ¿UÊòÊÊflÊ‚ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
45

44 •ŸÈ‚ÍÁøÃ ¡ÊÁÃ/¡Ÿ¡ÊÁÃ ∑§ ¿UÊòÊ ¿UÊòÊÊ•Ù¥ ∑§ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
¬˝ÊflËáÿ ◊¥ ©UÛÊÿŸ
45 •ŸÈ‚ÍÁøÃ ¡ÊÁÃ/¡Ÿ¡ÊÁÃ ∑§ ¬˝ÁÃ÷ÊflÊŸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
¿UÊòÊ-¿UÊòÊÊ•Ù¥ ∑§ Á‹∞ •ÊflÊ‚Ëÿ ÁfllÊ‹ÿ
46 ©Uà∑Î§c∆U Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ∑§ãº˝Ù¥ ∑§Ë SÕÊ¬ŸÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
47 ©UìÊÃ⁄U ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ ‡ÊÊ‹Ê•Ù¥ ◊¥ ¬ÈSÃ∑§Ê‹ÿ ∑§Ë SÕÊ¬ŸÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
48 ©UìÊÃ⁄U ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ∑§ Á‹ÿ ª˝Ê◊ËáÊ •ı⁄U ‡Ê„U⁄UË § Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
çÙ·¤æØô´ ·¤ô ¥ÙéÎæÙ
49 ©UìÊÃ⁄U ◊ÊäÿÁ◊∑§ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ◊á«U‹ ∑§Ù ¬⁄UËˇÊÊ ‡ÊÈÀ∑§
∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
50 ©U¬ÿÙ¡ŸÊ ˇÊG ◊¥ ‡ÊÒˇÊÁáÊ∑§ ÷flŸÙ fl •ÊflÊ‚Ëÿ ‚¢SÕÊ
÷flŸÙ¥ ∑§Ê ⁄Uπ⁄UπÊfl (•ŸÈë¿UŒ (w|z(v)) Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
51 ∞∑§‹√ÿ ¬Ê‹Ë≈U∑§ÁŸ∑§ ‚¥SÕÊ∞° Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare OC
52 ∞Áë¿U∑§ ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù ‡ÊÒˇÊÁáÊ∑§ •ı⁄U •ãÿ
∑§ÀÿÊáÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ¬˝flÎÁûÊÿÙ ∑§ Á‹∞ •ŸÈŒÊŸ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
53 ∑§ãÿÊ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ ¬Á⁄U‚⁄U Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C G
54 ∑§ãÿÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ „UÃÈ ¬˝Ùà‚Ê„UŸ ÿÙ¡ŸÊ∞¥ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
(∑§ˇÊÊ Ÿfl◊Ë¥ ∞fl¢ ∑§ˇÊÊ ÇÿÊ⁄„UUflË)
55 ∑§ãÿÊÿÙ¥ ∑§Ù Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ „UÃÈ ¬˝Ùà‚Ê„UŸ ÿÙ¡ŸÊ∞¥ (∑§ˇÊÊ ¿U∆UË) Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
56 ∑§êåÿÍ≈U⁄U ¬˝Á‡ÊˇÊáÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
57 ∑˝§Ë«∏Ê ¬Á⁄U‚⁄U Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
58 ‚ÊßUÁ∑§‹Ê¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ŒÊÿ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C G
59 ‡ÊÊ‹Ê•Ù¥ / ¿UÊòÊÊflÊ‚Ù¥ ◊¥ ¬ÿ¡‹ √ÿflSÕÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
60 ‡ÊÒˇÊÁáÊ∑§ ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥, •ÊüÊ◊, ¿UÊòÊÊflÊ‚Ù¥ „UÃÈ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
©Uà∑Î§DÃÊÔU ¬È⁄US∑§Ê⁄U
61 ‡ÊÒˇÊÁáÊ∑§ ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥, •ÊüÊ◊, ¿UÊGÊflÊ‚Ù „UÃÈ ÷ÍÁ◊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
•Áœª˝„UáÊ ∑§Ë ÿÙ¡ŸÊ
62 ‡ÊÒˇÊÁáÊ∑§ ‚SÕÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ë ◊⁄Uê◊Ã ÃÕÊ ‚Ê¡‚Ö¡Ê Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
63 ‚≈U‹Êß¸≈U ∑ § ◊Êäÿ◊ ‚ Á‡ÊˇÊÊ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
64 ‚ÒÁŸ∑§ S∑Í§‹ / ÁŸ¡Ë ‚¢SÕÊ•Ù¥ ◊¥ •äÿŸ⁄UÃ •ŸÈ‚ÍÁøÃ Department of SC ST and OBC Welfare C
¡ÊÁÃ / ¡Ÿ¡ÊÁÃ ∑§ ÁfllÊÁÕ¸ÿÙ¥ ∑§ ‡ÊÈÀ∑§ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸
46

Budget for Children in Madhya Pradesh 2001-2002 to 2008-2009

Budget for Children in Madhya Pradesh 2001-2002 to 2008-2009

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Budget for Children in Madhya Pradesh 2001-2002 to 2008-2009

Similar to Budget for Children in Madhya Pradesh 2001-2002 to 2008-2009 (20)

More from HAQ: Centre for Child Rights

More from HAQ: Centre for Child Rights (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Budget for Children in Madhya Pradesh 2001-2002 to 2008-2009