Why student-teacher ratio in HEIs looks healthy while faculty posts lie vacant

India’s higher education system is among one of the largest in the world. According to the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2023-24, released in July 2026, it spans about 1,200 universities, 50,000 colleges and 15,000 standalone institutes. The total enrolment stands at nearly 4.5 crore students, taught by more than 17 lakh faculty members.With numbers of this scale, a key test of the system’s quality is the number of students per teacher. This is measured by the Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR), which is the average number of students per teacher at a given level of education. Regulatory norms set the desirable range for higher education at 15:1 to 25:1.According to the AISHE 2024 report, in the regular mode of education, the national PTR is 22:1 across all institutions, 23:1 in universities and colleges, and 19:1 in universities and their constituent units. The best ratios in regular mode are found mostly in smaller territories and southern States. Lakshadweep leads with a PTR of 9:1, followed by Puducherry at 10:1, Ladakh at 12:1 and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands at 13:1. Goa, Kerala and Tamil Nadu are next at 14:1 each.On paper, these figures suggest a system with healthy teaching capacity. Yet reports of faculty vacancies come from States across the country. If the ratios look healthy, why are so many posts lying empty? Tamil Nadu may offer a clue.Ratios vs. vacanciesTamil Nadu’s regular-mode PTR is 14:1 in all institutions, 15:1 in universities and colleges, and 16:1 in universities and their constituent units, all better than the national averages. But, according to the data from Right to Information (RTI) applications and from the Tamil Nadu Federation of Universities Faculty Association (TANFUFA) in 2025 give a different picture.An earlier report in The Hindu, based on data accessed from TANFUFA, said that 65% of the sanctioned teaching posts at the University of Madras, one of the State’s oldest and most acclaimed universities, were vacant. The problem is not limited to the University of Madras, more than 40% of sanctioned faculty posts are vacant in 12 of the State’s 21 universities. Professor D. Bhaskaran, General Secretary of TANFUFA, told The Hindu that, according to the information available with TANFUFA, the situation in the State remains unchanged, as no recruitment has taken place since thenAccording to the AISHE report’s analysis, the PTR figures combine government and private institutions. They are broken down into only three categories (all institutions, universities and colleges, and universities and their constituent units) and by State. AISHE does not explicitly publish PTR separately by management type, discipline, or level of study, as far as the published reports show. Mr. Bhaskaran said that a separate figure for government universities could look less favourable. The current figures look good, he opined, because the overall estimates include private institutions, where the teaching staff is adequate owing to temporary or outsourced posts.Calls for a finer breakdownProf. Yusuf Akhter, Assistant Professor at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, who advocates transparency in higher education, said the reported PTR is a single overall average that can mask wide variations, as it does not distinguish between disciplines, undergraduate and postgraduate levels, or privately and government-managed institutions. He said the underlying data is likely to be skewed, and that an average can misrepresent skewed data because a few extreme values pull it up or down. He suggested that the median be reported instead, as it is less affected by such outliers and gives a better picture of the typical case.He also said that PTR figures should be segregated by the management of universities and colleges and by discipline. Since different disciplines need different ratios, such a breakdown would help policymakers and researchers analyse the data more meaningfully.Limits of self-reported dataFurther, the AISHE data has limitations. The survey publishes reports, but it notes that unit-level data is not made public. According to the report, the data relies on annual self-reported returns from higher education institutions, collected online through the AISHE web portal and filled in by institutional nodal officers.On verifying the submitted data by the institutes, the AISHE report notes that the data is checked through built-in validations, training workshops for nodal officers and department-level scrutiny. However, because these checks mainly compare current entries with past data, the figures are best read as broad indicators rather than exact measures.Deepak Jain, a consultant who works in assisting university and college quality assessment and accreditation, said that AISHE data is self-declared but, unlike the data submitted for rankings and accreditation, carries no pressure or targets for institutions. Institutions are therefore expected to report accurately, though the data ultimately relies on what they submit.The Hindu has sent an email to the Department of Higher Education, and Minister for Education seeking comment. The response will be added once received.