Report No.

PA 13 of 2008

PERFORMANCE AUDIT ON NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR

NUTRITIONAL SUPPORT TO PRIMARY EDUCATION
(MIDDAY MEAL SCHEME)

1. Introduction

The National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education

(commonly known as the Mid-Day Meal Scheme) was launched as a
Centrally-Sponsored Scheme in August 1995. The scheme was intended to
(i) boost the universalisation of primary education by increasing
(a) enrolment;
(b) retention; and
(c) attendance; and
(ii) simultaneously impacting on the nutritional status of students, in
primary classes country wide, in a phased manner by 1997-98.

The scheme initially focused on children at the primary stage (class I to V) in

government, local body and government-aided schools. It was extended in
October 2002 to cover children studying in the centres under Education
Guarantee Scheme (EGS) and Alternative & Innovative Education (AIE).
Central support was provided by way of free supply of foodgrains through the
Food Corporation of India (FCI) at the rate of 100 grams per student day,
where cooked meals were served and at the rate of 3 kg per student per month,
where foodgrains were distributed and subsidy for transport of foodgrains
from nearest FCI depot to the primary school subject to a maximum of Rs. 50
per quintal.

In December 2004, the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Department of Elementary Education and Literacy revised the guidelines for
the Scheme. These guidelines emphasised providing of cooked meals with
minimum 300 calories and 8-12 grams of protein content while simultaneously
providing for essential micronutrients and de-worming medicines.

The guidelines provided for special focus on the enrolment, attendance and
retention of children belonging to disadvantaged sections. Nutritional support
to students was also provided during summer vacations in drought-affected
areas. The Ministry also provided financial assistance to the state
governments for management, monitoring and evaluation (MME).

1
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

The Ministry revised the scheme again in September 2006 with the following
objectives:
(i) Improving the nutritional status of children in classes I-V in
government, local body and government aided schools, and EGS and
AIE centres;
(ii) Encouraging poor children belonging to disadvantaged sections to
attend school more regularly and help them concentrate on classroom
activities; and
(iii) Providing nutritional support to children of primary stage in drought-
affected areas during summer vacation.

The nutritional value of the cooked mid day meal was increased from 300 to
450 calories and the protein content therein from 8-12 grams to 12 grams. The
scheme of 2006 also provided for adequate quantities of micronutrients like
iron, folic acid, vitamin-A etc.

2. Organisational set up

The Mid-day meal scheme is approved, funded and monitored by the Ministry
of Human Resource Development (Department of Elementary Education and
Literacy). The Joint Secretary (Elementary Education-I) is in-charge of the
scheme under the overall supervision of the Secretary, Department of
Elementary Education and Literacy. One Deputy Secretary and one Deputy
Education Adviser assist the Joint Secretary (Elementary Education-I) in
discharging his duties under the scheme.

The implementation of the scheme rests with the state/union territory

governments. Each state has its own implementing, monitoring and control
structure.

3. Budget and expenditure

The details of budget allocations and expenditure as per the Appropriation
Accounts of the Ministry of Human Resource Development are shown below:

2
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

(Rupees in crore)
Total grant as per Expenditure as per
Year Appropriation Appropriation
accounts accounts
2002-03 1099.03 1099.09
2003-04 1375.00 1375.00
2004-05 1588.55 1588.551
2005-06 3186.34 3184.00
2006-07 5234.27 5230.74

The expenditure excludes value of subsidy of Rs. 6898.29 crore2 allowed on

supply of foodgrains for the scheme during the years 2002-03 to 2006-07.

4. Input system for the scheme:

Central assistance was provided to the states by way of:

(i) free supply of foodgrains from the nearest godown of FCI at the rate
of 100 grams of wheat/rice per student per school day (cost of which
was reimbursed to FCI by Government of India);
(ii) reimbursement of actual cost of transportation in the form of subsidy
for transportation of foodgrains from the nearest FCI Depot to the
primary schools, subject to a maximum of Rs. 50 per quintal with
additional cost to the States which were hilly, economically
backward and/or lacked rail facilities3;
Rates were revised from October 2004 raising the subsidy to Rs. 100
per quintal for special category states and Rs. 75 per quintal for other
states/union territories;
(iii) Cost of cooking (including ingredients such as pulses, vegetables,
cooking oil, condiments, cost of fuel and wages payable to the
cooking agency) was being met by the states until September 2004.
However, from 2004-05, the Government of India allowed the state
governments to earmark a maximum of 15 per cent of the additional
Central assistance (ACA) under the Pradhan Mantri Gramodaya
Yojana (PMGY) for meeting cooking costs. Assistance for cooking
costs at the rate of Rs. 1.00 per child per school day was provided
from September 2004 in addition to the above ACA of 15 per cent.
Rates of assistance for cooking costs were revised to Rs. 1.80 per
child per school day for special category states in the Northern
Eastern Region provided these states contributed a minimum 20

1
There was difference of Rs. 1232 crore in the expenditure as per records of the Ministry
(MDM Division) and as per Appropriation Accounts. Ministry stated (September 2007)
that the amount was released as additional central assistance by Ministry of Finance to
states directly.
2
Calculations based on the difference between economic rate and the BPL rate of
foodgrains.
3
Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Nagaland, Mizoram, Sikkim, Tripura, Assam and Uttarakhand.

3
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

paise (Rs. 1.50 per child per school day for other states/union
territories provided these contributed minimum of 50 paise) from
16 June 2006;
(iv) Physical infrastructure such as kitchen-cum-store, adequate water
supply for drinking and cooking, cooking devices, containers for
storage of foodgrains and other ingredients and utensils for cooking
and serving were to be provided by States/local bodies by utilising
their funds along with those available under various centrally-
sponsored schemes. Assistance to construct a kitchen cum store up
to a maximum of Rs. 60,000 per unit per school and replacement of
kitchen devices at the overall average cost of Rs. 5000 per school
was also provided w.e.f. 16 June 2006 under the National
Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education; and
(v) Assistance for Management, Monitoring & Evaluation (MME) at a
rate not less than 0.90 per cent of the total assistance on items such
as foodgrains, transport cost and cooking cost was provided only
from 2004-05. This was increased to a minimum of at least 1.8 per
cent of such assistance from 2005-06. However, 0.2 per cent of such
assistance was retained/utilised by the Central Government out of the
total 2 per cent provided in the scheme.
A tabular break-up of the contribution of the Union and State Governments to
the financing of the mid day meal scheme has been detailed in Annex–IA. A
flow chart capturing the details of various activities involved in the
implementation of the scheme is given in Annex-IB.

5. Implementation: Responsibilities of the state governments

As per the original scheme of 1995, the implementing agencies of the

programme were local bodies/authorities such as Panchayats and
Nagarpalikas. The Union Government assisted these bodies in implementing
the programme by providing foodgrains from the nearest FCI godowns free of
cost at the rate of 100 grams per student per day. The district was the unit of
allocation. Based on the allocation made for each district by the Government
of India, the District Collector further allocated the entitlement of each
school/local authority and specified who will lift the foodgrains quarterly. The
District Collector was responsible for collection of foodgrains from the FCI
godown and transportation of foodgrains and distribution thereof to
schools/local bodies either directly or through authorised agencies. Local
bodies had the flexibility of organising the provision of cooked/pre-cooked
food by schools (in association with the Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs),
Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and other organisations) and to
decide the type of food to be provided.
As per the scheme of 2004, the overall responsibility for implementation of
the programme vested with the State/UT Administration. This included
providing necessary infrastructure such as a kitchen cum store, adequate water
for drinking and cooking/washing, cooking devices, containers for storage and

4
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

utensils for cooking and serving, making all logistical/administrative

arrangements necessary for regular serving of a wholesome, cooked mid day
meal of satisfactory quality and nutritive value of 300 calories and 8-12 grams
of protein content (raised to 450 calories and 12 grams of protein content in
the revised scheme 2006) to eligible schools/EGS/AIE centres and providing
financial and other inputs over and above those to be provided by way of
central assistance.

The scheme of 2004 and 2006 envisaged the following main activities:
(i) Every State Government/UT administration would prescribe and
notify its own norms of expenditure for the midday meal scheme
which were to be met from the other centrally sponsored
programmes according to which it would allocate funds to the local
implementing agency;
(ii) Every state government/UT administration would designate a nodal
department for the programme (that need not necessarily be the
School Education Department) for effective implementation of the
programme all over the State;
(iii) The State Governments were also responsible for ensuring
nutritional content and health check ups etc;
(iv) At the local level, the state governments were expected to assign
responsibility for implementation and supervision of the programme
to an appropriate body e.g. gram panchayat, municipality, village
education committee, parent teacher association and school
management-cum-development committee. Responsibility for
cooking would as far as possible be assigned to local women’s Self-
Help Groups (SHGs), Youth Clubs affiliated to Nehru Yuvak
Kendras (NYKs), Village Education Committees (VECs), School
Management cum Development Committees (SMDCs), Parent
Teacher associations/ Mother Teacher Associations (PTAs/MTAs),
or good Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) where available;
(v) For urban areas, the scheme provided that cooking might, wherever
appropriate, be undertaken in a centralised kitchen and cooked hot
meals might then be transported under hygienic conditions through a
reliable transport system to various schools;
(vi) The nodal department designated by the respective states should
furnish to the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development by
15th January every year district-wise requests for allocation of
foodgrains based on enrolment data of eligible primary schools as on
the preceding 30th September and anticipated enrolment in the next
financial year. Based on this, the Ministry would convey district-
wise allocations of foodgrains for the next financial year to all
States/union territories and to FCI. The district nodal agency would
sub-allocate the district’s allocation for the year to each
school/agency identified for cooking/supply of mid-day meal as per

5
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

its entitlement on a month-wise basis and would also inform

concerned officers of FCI. Month-wise break-up of the quantity
would be made taking into account the actual number of school days
in the month. Allocated foodgrains would be lifted by the State
Nodal Transport Agency (appointed by state government) from the
nearest FCI godown and would be delivered to every school etc;
(vii) The Block/Sub-Divisional Level Officer of the nodal department
would monitor institute wise, the actual utilisation of foodgrains
delivered to it and would suitably regulate further delivery taking
into account-unconsumed balances, if any; and
(viii) District authorities would ensure that foodgrains of at least Fair
Average Quality (FAQ) were issued by FCI through joint inspection
by a team consisting of FCI and administration nominee(s).

6. Audit objectives

Performance audit of the scheme was carried out to verify that:

¾ the scheme achieved its objective of supporting the universalisation of
primary education by improving
(a) enrolment;
(b) attendance; and
(c) retention;
for the children in general in the primary schools/EGS/AIE4 centres and in
particular to those belonging to disadvantaged sections;
¾ the scheme achieved its objective of improving the nutritional status of
the children in the primary classes;
¾ the scheme contributed to enhancement in the learning levels of the
children in primary classes in the schools where the nutritional support
was provided;
¾ the state governments implemented the programme through well
designed implementation procedures, definition of the norms for
expenditure met from other centrally sponsored schemes, contribution
of their share of expenditure and institution of efficient reporting,
inspection and monitoring system;
¾ the internal controls in the Ministry of Human Resource Development
and state nodal departments were efficient and ensured adequate and
timely inputs, serving of cooked meals of the prescribed calorific value
and a system of timely and reliable programme information. The
controls provided assurance against frauds, misuse, waste and quality
of delivery to ensure economic and efficient use of the inputs for
achieving the intended objectives; and

4
Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) and Alternative and Innovative Education (AIE)
Scheme

6
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

¾ the implementation of the programme did not have any unintended

adverse impact on primary education.

7. Indicators/criteria for assessment used to benchmark the

implementation of the scheme included:

(i) The robustness of systems to collect data on enrolment,

attendance, retention and nutritional status of the children;
(ii) Enrolment and retention from year to year;
(iii) Improvement in attendance rates in schools;
(iv) System of measurement for assessment of nutritional status of
children and improvement in the nutritional status;
(v) Programme and impact parameters prescribed in the scheme
guidelines5;
(vi) Evaluation reports of the scheme; and
(vii) Internal control structure and its effectiveness.

8. Scope of audit

The audit was carried out from June 2007 to October 2007 by examining the
documents in the Ministry relating to the Scheme over the period 2002-03 to
2006-07. Simultaneously audit of the implementation of the scheme over the
same period was carried out in the state government departments, the selected
districts and sample primary schools covered under the scheme.

9. Audit sampling and methodology

Scrutiny of the records at the state/district and school levels was carried out by
employing circular systematic sampling and simple random sampling without
replacement. A total of 195 districts and 3816 schools across 30 states/union
territories were test checked in audit. The State wise break up of districts and
schools selected for audit is given at Annex-III. The Ministry’s records were
examined by employing statistical random sampling methods for examining
state wise/district wise records maintained for various components of the
Central assistance.

Data sets were taken from schools as the base unit and audit test programmes
consistent with audit objectives were formulated and tested against evidence
and documents made available to reach consistent conclusions based on
analysis of results.

5
Details given in Annex-II

7
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

10. Acknowledgement

We place on record our sincere appreciation for the cooperation of the

Ministry of Human Resource Development and State nodal departments in
facilitating our audit.

An entry conference was held with Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource

Development before taking up the audit. An exit conference was also held
with the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development on 7 March
2008 to discuss the findings/conclusions in the report.

Audit findings

It is recognised that the midday meal scheme in itself is laudable. Several

improvements have been made in the contents of MDM as the scheme
implementation progressed. For instance in the revised scheme of 2006, the
calorie content has been increased from 300 calories to 450 calories and the
protein content from 8-12 grams to 12 grams. The performance audit has
sought to examine the implementation of the scheme and suggest ways
whereby the delivery of the scheme can be improved and direct and indirect
outcomes are measured and evaluated.

11. Objective : Supporting the universalisation of primary education

by improving enrolment, attendance and retention

The Ministry allocates foodgrains district-wise to the state governments based

on the enrolment data of eligible primary schools and EGS/AIE centres as on
30 September of the preceding year and anticipated increase in enrolment in
the ensuing financial year; further limited to an average attendance rate of 85
per cent of the enrolment. The enrolment data furnished by the state
governments thus forms the basis for allocation of foodgrains and any
improvement therein would be an indirect indicator of the impact of the
scheme.
Though the scheme had been operational for more than 12 years and involved
annual outlays reaching Rs. 5234.27 crore in 2006-07, the Ministry had not
established any system to assess the outcome of the scheme in terms of well-
defined parameters. The data of enrolment furnished by the states was used by
the Ministry primarily for allocation of foodgrains and providing programme
funds and not for assessing and impact analysis. The MDM, which is run by
the Ministry of Human Resource Development, was to provide the impetus for
attracting and retaining children in the schools, is being implemented with the
primary purpose for providing one daily meal without link to the education,
nutrition and health objectives. This instrumentality has not been followed up
with a comprehensive detailed impact analysis on support to the educational,
nutritional and health objectives as discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
The Ministry stated in February 2008 that Government of India was providing
foodgrains (dry ration) to eligible children till August 2004 and cooked
midday meal was introduced only in September 2004. Thus, at the start of

8
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

performance audit in June 2007, cooked midday meal programme had been in
operation for only two and half years, which was too short a period for impact
measurement and analysis. The Ministry also stated that the Programme
Evaluation Organisation (PEO) of the Planning Commission had
commissioned a comprehensive evaluation of the Scheme including its
nutritional impact and their report was awaited.
The reply of the Ministry is not consistent with the programme objectives set
by them as increasing enrolment, retention and attendance and impacting on
nutrition, which were set right from the start of the programme in 1995, were
not dependent on cooked meal or uncooked ration. Thus, the crucial aspect of
the system of measurement of the outcomes of the scheme objectives had
remained elusive for a long period.
The Ministry further stated that it had initiated dialogue with four national
level premier institutions in the field of health and nutrition to conduct
comprehensive nationwide evaluation and that during consultation, experts
from the these institutions had opined that the nutritional impact on account of
midday meal could not be over emphasised as there was no prior base line
study and it would be difficult to measure improvement in nutritional due to
midday meal scheme and also that midday meal was just one of the four meals
a day and therefore could have only have a limited impact. The Ministry also
stated that at present Ministry of Health and Family Welfare did not capture
the nutritional status of children of age group 6-14 years and that the Ministry
had requested Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in July 2007 to include
this crucial age group in next survey.
Ministry’s reply ought to be considered with the scheme guidelines 2004,
which required conducting a baseline study for the year 2004-05 by the end of
academic session 2004-05, which was not implemented. Besides, if a base-
line data on nutrition was not captured prior to introduction of the programme,
there is always a time to begin, which then can form a baseline for subsequent
evaluation of the impact. Even if the mid-day meal is only one of the four
meals, determination of nutrition parameters and its systematic measurement
could provide an assurance of the sustained impact.

11.1 Impact on enrolment

The MDM scheme was launched with the aim of attracting children to schools
and, thus, bringing about improvement in enrolment. However, the objective
related to enrolment was consequently not mentioned in the scheme objectives
of 2006. No basis for omitting the objective was either available in the
Expenditure Finance Committee’s (EFC) memorandum or the Cabinet Note.
The Ministry neither analysed/used the available state level data to assess the
impact on enrolment nor fixed any measurable target to improve the coverage
of children. An analysis of the data by audit revealed that the aggregated
enrolment for the whole country displayed a consistent increase during 2002-
03 to 2006-07, which was accompanied by a corresponding increase/spread in
the number of schools (Annex-IV). While the increase in enrolment could not
be conclusively established as a consequence of the MDM scheme, the

9
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Ministry stated that the increase reflected in the data was attributable to
various interventions, MDM being one of the major factors. Given this fact,
the lack of analysis of the impact of the MDM meant that the scheme could
not be and had not been tailored to meet field requirements and accentuate
positive results.
Eight states/union territories (Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala,
Maharashtra, Orissa, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh)
registered a consistent annual decline in the enrolment between 2002-03 to
2006-07. On the other hand, increase in the enrolment figures was noticed in
nine states/union territories of Chandigarh, Uttar Pradesh, Meghalaya,
Arunachal Pradesh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Jharkhand, Tripura, Bihar and
Uttarakhand. The remaining 13 states6 witnessed varying trends of enrolment
during the years 2002-03 to 2006-07. Sample checks of districts records and
school records also disclosed that there was no uniform pattern of increase or
decrease in enrolment in districts/schools of these states. In the state of
Jharkhand, an independent study on MDM sponsored by state government
attributed the increase in enrolment mainly to the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
(SSA)7.
The Ministry stated in February 2008 that the scheme objectives 2006 ‘to
attend school more regularly and help them to concentrate on class room
activities’ encompassed increase in enrolment and therefore it was not correct
to say that this objective had been omitted.
The reply is inconsistent with the scheme guidelines of 2006, as the scheme
objective of 2006 quoted by the Ministry did not include the enrolment factor
at all but contained only the intent to enhance attendance, retention and
learning. Moreover, even this objective was not applicable for all children but
specifically applied to the children of poor and disadvantaged sections, while
the initial scheme guidelines were intended to cover all children of primary
age group.
The Ministry also stated that it would not be practicable and feasible to isolate
midday meal, as a variable for increase/decrease in enrolment and this would
entail research to exactly quantify the impact as a result of MDM and that
undertaking such research was not advisable. The reply is inconsistent with
the scheme guidelines 2004, which specifically provided for independent
evaluation of the scheme by outsourcing to reputed organisations for impact
analysis. Moreover, even if direct cause and effect relationship cannot be
established, the measurement of this and other outcomes could provide at least
an indicative impact.

6
Assam, Karnataka, Haryana, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir, West Bengal, Nagaland,
Gujarat, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Daman & Diu, Manipur, Pondicherry
7
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is another centrally sponsored scheme of the Ministry of
Human Resource Development with the prime objective to have all children in the
age group 6 yrs-14 yrs in school

10
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

11.1.1. Reliability of data

The enrolment data, as furnished by the state governments, forms the basis for
allocation of foodgrains and cooking cost by the Ministry. The Ministry,
however, did not establish a system of reliable and consistent data capture
from the states. Neither was there any system of cross verification of the
correctness of enrolment figures reported by the state governments.
The data of enrolment collected from the states were inconsistent with the data
maintained by the Ministry, which indicates unreliable data capture. The
details are given in the Annex-V. It was also noticed that in the states of
Daman and Diu, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Tripura, Chattisgarh,
Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, and Jharkhand the number of children shown
enrolled exceeded total eligible children in the population. Instances of over-
reporting/discrepant figures of enrolment at state/district level were noticed in
the states of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
Assam, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir. In the states
of Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Tripura, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh,
the figures of enrolment for MDM were more than those reported in the SSA
which again is indicative of inaccurate data reporting since SSA covers
unaided schools as well and therefore, should have a larger child population
within its ambit than the MDM scheme. In Nagaland, the reported enrolment
was static during 2003-04 to 2006-07 indicating incorrect data reporting. The
inconsistencies in data reporting to the Ministry can be seen in the following
map. (Impact analysis is given in paragraph 16).

11
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Reported enrolment
exceeded the number
of eligible children

Reporting of inflated Mismatch in figures at various levels of data

figures of enrolment collection i.e. schools, districts and state

Discrepancy in figures of
Difference in enrolment at various levels Reported enrolment
figures of static during 2003-04
enrolment to 2006-07
furnished by the Reported enrolment more
Ministry and those than that of SSA
furnished by state
government to
state AsG

Reported
Reported enrolment exceeded the
enrolment
number of eligible children
exceeded
the number
of eligible Dadar & Discrepancy in figures of
children Nagar enrolment at various levels
Haveli

Reported enrolment more than

that of SSA

Difference in figures of
enrolment furnished by the
Ministry and those furnished by
In five districts state government to state AsG
discrepancy between
district and nodal
officers’ figures

Discrepancy in figures of
enrolment at various levels

Over reporting of
enrolment

12
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

The Ministry admitted the instances of reported enrolment of children being

more than the eligible children in the population in the states of Arunachal
Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Jharkhand, Orissa, Tripura and Chattisgarh and
stated that it was seized of the matter and had requested all concerned states to
take remedial action. The Ministry also stated that the cases of over-reporting
and discrepant figures of enrolment as pointed by audit were being taken up
with the states concerned.

11.2 Impact on attendance

The scheme objectives of 1995 and 2004 included among others, a positive
impact on the attendance rate of primary school children. The objective
related to attendance was dropped from the scheme objectives of 2006 for
reasons not on record. The Ministry did not analyse the data of attendance
received from the state governments to assess the impact of the scheme on
attendance despite collecting the data of estimated average attendance rate
since 2004.
• In eight states/union territories (Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
Nagaland, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Andaman & Nicobar,
Tripura and Punjab), the data on attendance was not being compiled
regularly at the state level. Yet all these states had been furnishing the
estimated average attendance rate to the Ministry.
• In Chhattisgarh, the data was not compiled at district level, yet the
average attendance rate was being furnished by the State Government.
• In Bihar, Kerala and Haryana, the data on attendance was not being
compiled at any level yet figures were furnished to the Ministry.
• In five states/union territories (Tamil Nadu, Chattisgarh, Chandigarh,
Maharashtra and Gujarat) the average attendance compiled at state
level showed an increase.
• In two states (Himachal Pradesh and Dadra & Nagar Haveli) it had
declined. In Manipur, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh no clear trend in
attendance rate was observed.

Neither the Ministry nor the state governments had established or even
attempted to establish any system for measuring a direct relationship between
increase in attendance and the MDM scheme despite the scheme delineating
increase in attendance as a specific objective in guidelines up to 2004.
The Ministry stated in February 2008 that the objective of improving
attendance had not been dropped but the contents of the objective had been
merely rephrased. It also stated that a study with regard to improvement in
attendance was being undertaken by its SSA division.

The reply ought to be viewed in terms of the scheme objectives. The

expression ‘to attend the school more regularly and to help them concentrate

13
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

on class room activities’ was not extended to all primary children as done
earlier but was specifically directed towards covering poor children belonging
to disadvantaged sections alone. As such, some amount of vagueness was
introduced while framing the revised guidelines. Even after 12 years of
commencement of the scheme it had not undertaken impact analysis on
attendance factor.

11.3 Impact on retention

The scheme also envisaged in 1995/2004 the decrease in the dropout rate as
one of the outcomes. The Ministry had no scheme specific data with regard to
drop out rates in government and government aided schools/EGS/AIE centres
and thus the impact of MDM on dropout rate could not be analysed. The
statistical division of the Ministry furnished data to audit showing a reduction
in drop out rates1. However, this data included private school children as well
and therefore could only serve as a broad based rather than specific indicator
for dropouts. Thus, the dropout rates were not collected for MDM covered
schools at all. The Ministry, consequently, was unable to assess the impact of
MDM on retention levels.

The states also did not establish a system of reliable data capture on
retention/dropout rate of children in the primary schools covered under the
scheme and its consolidation at district and block levels.
• In seven states/union territories (Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana,
Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir, Assam and Andaman & Nicobar
Islands) the dropout rate was not compiled at the state level at all.
• In Himachal Pradesh drop out rate was being compiled only from
2005.
• In 12 states/union territories (Chandigarh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra2, Daman and
Diu, Orissa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Jharkhand and Tripura) the
dropout rate was lower in 2006-07 than what was in 2002-03.
• In 140 test-checked schools in Bihar, the drop out rates had declined in
rural schools but it increased in urban schools.
• In Chattisgarh, the dropout rates had increased.
• However, in six states (Karnataka, Kerala, Daman & Diu, Maharashtra,
Haryana and Orissa) the dropout rate fluctuated during 2002-03 to
2006-07. In Manipur and Uttarakhand, also the dropout rate did not
show any clear trend of increase or decrease.
• In Rajasthan the drop out rate increased from 0.22 per cent in 2004-05
to 5.39 per cent in 2006-07.
1
Drop out rate declined from 34.89 per cent in 2002-03 to 29 per cent in 2004-05
2
In Kerala, Maharashtra and Himachal Pradesh though dropout rate had decreased,
data for the years 2005-06 (Kerala), 2005-07(Maharashtra) and 2002-05 (Himachal
Pradesh) was not available.

14
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Though overall dropout rates appeared to be declining in most states, the

decline could not be directly attributed to the MDM Scheme, as Ministry had
not established any system of measuring a relationship between decrease in
dropout rate and MDM Scheme.

The data of enrolment and estimated average attendance rates as furnished by

the state governments assumed considerable significance as it provided for
performance/outcome indicators besides forming the basis for allocation of
foodgrains and cooking cost. Even after more than a decade of
implementation of the scheme, the Ministry had not designed the scheme
guidelines or to meet its own objective in terms of assessing increased
enrolment and attendance rates of children. Even the voluminous data
generated was not used by the Ministry as an input control tool to measure and
report on the performance of the programme. Besides, neither the Ministry
nor the state governments had established any system to ensure accurate
reporting of enrolment and attendance figures by state governments. Nor was
there a mechanism for cross checking the data at various levels to establish
integrity of data reporting. Similarly, neither the Ministry nor the states
compiled and analysed the drop out rates of children covered under MDM
scheme so as to assess the impact of the scheme. MDM had thus not been
used and monitored as a targeted intervention.

Sample checks by audit of the enrolment, attendance and retention rates of

children in selected schools indicated that the scheme had not brought about
perceptible improvement in these parameters.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that analysis of reduction in drop out
rate as a direct attribute of the Midday Meal Scheme would entail conducting
specific research on comparing the schools where MDM was being provided
against those schools where it was not being provided and since MDM was
universalised such a study was not proposed to be undertaken.

The reply of the Ministry is not tenable since in terms of the scheme
guidelines 2004 the Ministry was required to undertake impact analysis of the
scheme on retention levels. The Ministry should have had a system in place to
monitor the achievement of this objective. Further, progressive improvement
in retention and reduction of dropouts for MDM covered schools over
successive periods should have been collected and compared by the Ministry.

Recommendations

™ The Ministry/states should establish a reliable system of data

capture of actual enrolment, attendance and retention from
schools and its consolidation at different levels in all States to
analyse the impact of the scheme on these parameters. The
Ministry should vigorously coordinate with the state governments
to ensure that the data flows from the school level to state level in a
transparent manner with records of compilation maintained at

15
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

each level i.e. school level, district level and state level. Periodical
checks should be arranged to crosscheck the data for accuracy.
™ The Ministry should provide for analysis of the feedback received
and take remedial action, when required. The analysis of the
outcome indicators and reporting should be computerised and
brought into an IT system as far as possible so that the evaluation
flows easily from the data available.
™ The state governments should also compile the figures of
enrolment, attendance and retention of individual schools to
ascertain the impact of the MDM scheme on these schools. Their
analysis and feedback should be made available to the Ministry for
further scheme evaluation.
™ The Ministry should analyse the impact on enrolment, attendance
and retention in individual schools where MDM is already in
place.

12. Objective: Special attention for disadvantaged sections

One of the scheme objectives (2004 and 2006) was to encourage poor children
belonging to disadvantaged sections to attend school regularly and help them
concentrate on classroom activities. The Ministry, however, did not define as
to what was meant by poor and disadvantaged sections. Neither were such
sections actually identified nor any special action plan focussing on them
drawn up by the Ministry. On this being pointed out, the Ministry stated that
the MDM programme covers all children studying in class I–V in
Government, Government-aided, local body schools and EGS/AIE centres,
irrespective of socio-economic background. Thus, the Ministry included this
provision of special focus on disadvantaged section in the scheme without any
specific intent or objectives, as it did not follow it up with any special action
plan and inputs for special attention to the disadvantaged. The state
governments also did not have a system in place for identification and
coverage of poor and disadvantaged.

Recommendation

™ The Ministry should be realistic in establishing the scheme

objectives and include only those objectives and goals, which the
scheme actually intends to achieve rather than including one or
more of the objectives in letters without an intent.

13. Objective: To enhance the nutritional levels of the children

One of the scheme objectives of the Government was to positively impact the
nutritional status of the primary school children. While this was included as a
primary objective of the scheme in 1995, the Ministry prescribed the impact
parameters for assessing the nutritional status almost a decade later in 2004.
The revised scheme of 2004 included assessment of percentage of

16
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

underweight children at school level through study of various deficiencies.

The health status of the children was to be monitored by the parent teacher
associations (PTA)/school level management and development committees
(SMDC). Yet even this incorporation of health and nutrition aspects remained
on paper as no basic indicators to monitor the incremental improvement in
health levels in the children or specific norms (height and weight etc.) for
measurements of nutritional status were set by the Ministry to serve as a
benchmark.

Thus, the nutritional status remained unmonitored. It was only in 2007 that
the Ministry of Human Resource Development requested the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare to conduct regular health checks of the children.
No follow-up action was taken to collect either the coverage of children or to
ascertain the improvement in nutritional status.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that the Chief Secretaries of all
states/union territories had been requested in January 2007 to revitalize the
schools health programme including nutritional monitoring under National
Rural Health Mission (NRHM). It added that it had requested the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare to ensure that the district level plans under NRHM
included nutritional monitoring along with provision of micronutrient
supplements and that the matter was being pursued.

Thus, despite increased emphasis on nutrition and its inclusion as a primary

objective right from the inception of the scheme in 1995, the Ministry had
taken first step to address this issue after the passage of 12 years. Moreover,
the Ministry had been unable to obtain any feed back from the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare as to the extent of coverage of the specific target
group of children. Besides, the Ministry had not collected any related data to
assess the impact of MDM on the nutritional levels of the children.
• Audit of selected schools in states brought out that there was no
mechanism of health checks in as many as 16 states/union territories
(Jharkhand, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Uttarakhand, Andhra
Pradesh, Tripura, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Himachal Pradesh,
Nagaland, Manipur, Punjab, Chandigarh, Meghalaya, Gujarat and
Bihar).
• In Rajasthan and Chattisgarh health checks were not conducted in 29
per cent and 10 per cent of the selected schools respectively.
• In Tamil Nadu health checks were not conducted in 82 per cent of the
selected schools.
• In Dadra and Nagar Haveli and West Bengal basic records of health
checks were not available. In Karnataka system of maintaining
individual health cards indicating the health status of each student was
introduced only from February 2007.

17
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

13.1 Calorific value of meals served

The Ministry in its scheme guidelines of 2006 increased from 300 to 450 the
calorie content of the cooked meal to be served to the children by prescribing
specific quantity of other ingredients (in addition to 100 gms of foodgrains)
viz. pulses, vegetables, oil and fat etc. In three states (Gujarat, Uttarakhand
and Bihar) a revised menu was prescribed to support the increased calorific
value. In seven states (Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Daman
and Diu, Chandigarh and Tamil Nadu) shortfall in supply of foodgrains in the
meals served to children ranged from a low of 5 grams to a high of 83 grams
against the prescribed quantity of 100 grams of foodgrains in the selected
schools/districts indicating that the prescribed nutrition was not provided to
the children of these areas.

13.2 Assurance of quality of food

The Ministry prescribed the programme parameters in terms of all children

getting a wholesome meal, which was to be monitored by the members of
PTA/SMDC. The overall quality of the mid day meal was to be monitored
through inspections which were to be fixed by the states so that
implementation of MDM programme in 25 per cent of the primary schools
was inspected every quarter and all primary schools were inspected at least
once in a year.
• In nine states (Kerala, Uttarakhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Tripura,
Daman and Diu, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Chandigarh and Bihar) the
target for inspections was not fixed by the state governments and
consequently no inspections were carried out at all in these states.
• In Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal inspections were carried out
occasionally.
• In Chattisgarh, inspections were carried out in 53 per cent of the test-
checked schools over the period 2004-05 to 2006-07.
• In the states of Gujarat, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Tamil Nadu, Orissa
and Uttar Pradesh inspections had been prescribed, but were not
conducted regularly.
• In Haryana and Andaman and Nicobar Islands no target of inspections
were fixed and no records of inspections were maintained.

Thus, the instrument of inspection was either ignored or implemented partially

in most states countrywide.

With a view to ensuring satisfactory quality of meals, the Ministry prescribed

inspection of ingredients/foodgrains by the teachers in the schools prior to
cooking and also presence of at least two of the members of VEC/PTA every
day at the time of the meal.
• In Andhra Pradesh, Pondicherry, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh, quality of
meals and ingredients was not inspected before cooking.

18
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

• Instances of food poisoning were noticed in the states of Uttar Pradesh,

Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

13.3 Administration of Micronutrients

The Ministry in its scheme guidelines of 2006 prescribed administration of

micronutrients viz. iron, folic acid and vitamins and other appropriate
supplements depending on area specific deficiencies along with six monthly
doses of deworming tablets to the children.

In 13 states/union territories3 Micronutrients and supplements were not

administered at all. These were only partially administered in the test-checked
schools of eight states/union territories4 ranging from 10.8 per cent in Madhya
Pradesh to 94 per cent in Rajasthan.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that the department was not providing
central assistance to states/union territories for providing
micronutrients/vitamins under the scheme and the scheme guidelines only
recommended that states provide micronutrients and vitamins and the
guidelines would be reiterated.

However, having prescribed this important health measure in the guidelines,

the Ministry’s crucial role in ensuring administration of the required
interventions by the states cannot be overlooked.

13.4 MDM during summer vacations in drought affected areas

The Ministry through its scheme guidelines intended to provide MDM to the
children of the drought affected areas during summer vacations as well.
However, MDM was not provided during 2004-07 in the drought affected
areas of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand Orissa and Uttar Pradesh depriving 194.37
lakh children. Similar instances were also noticed in the states of West
Bengal, Maharashtra, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Andhra
Pradesh.

Thus, although the Ministry placed emphasis in the scheme guidelines on

positively impacting the nutrition levels of the children, it failed to establish a
system to ascertain the improvement in nutritional levels. The inspections and
monitoring system devised to ensure serving of prescribed quantity and quality
of meals and micronutrient supplements were not being wholly implemented
by the states. The Ministry has also not obtained any feed back on this crucial
aspect.

3
Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Orissa,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Tripura, Nagaland and
Pondicherry,
4
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Chandigarh, Madhya Pradesh,
Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Chattisgarh

19
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Recommendations

™ The Ministry should establish a system to ascertain the

improvement in nutritional levels of the children and obtain
regular feedback from the states on inspections and monitoring of
meals served and administration of micronutrients to children as
prescribed in the scheme guidelines. This would help ensure
serving of prescribed quantity and quality of meals.
™ The Ministry should coordinate with Ministry of Health and
Family welfare as well as the State governments regarding the
monitoring of health of the children. Maintenance of health cards
in all the schools and regular medical checkups and administering
of supplements should be ensured.
™ The Ministry/states should investigate the reasons for shortfall in
calorific value of meals served and take corrective steps.
™ The Ministry/states should take steps to provide MDM to the
children of all the drought-affected areas during summer
vacations.

14. Serving nutritious cooked meals

State Governments and union territory administrations had overall

responsibility for providing a nutritious cooked midday meal to every child in
classes I to V in all Government schools, EGS and AIE centres. This included
the requirement of establishing systems for continuous and uninterrupted flow
of foodgrains from the FCI to all eligible schools/EGS/AIE centres.

14.1 Disruption in serving cooked meals

In the 1995 scheme guidelines, provision existed to provide cooked midday

meals in lieu of dry rations within a period of two years from commencement
of the scheme. The Supreme Court also directed in 2001 that all states should
provide cooked midday meal to the primary school children for at least 210
days in a year. However, in Chandigarh provision of cooked meal was
implemented only from 2006-07. In the test checked schools of 17
states/union territories5 significant disruption in providing cooked meals to the
children was noticed. The reasons for disruption were attributed to
shortage/delay in receipt of foodgrains, non-availability of funds, absence of
cooks etc. Details are given in Annex-VI.

14.2 Stock out with FCI godowns and interruption in supply

The state governments were responsible for ensuring availability of adequate

stocks of foodgrains with the FCI so that there was a continuous supply of

5
Uttarakhand, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Assam,
Maharashtra, Chattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Kerala, Orissa, Tripura,
Bihar, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Manipur

20
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

foodgrains to schools. However, in Jharkhand, foodgrains were short lifted

(between 17 per cent and 32.33 per cent) during 2005-06 due to non-
availability of stock with the FCI. In Uttarakhand, children in 75 test checked
schools were deprived of the meal for the same reasons. Instances of delay
and short delivery of foodgrains in schools were also noticed in the states of
Assam, Kerala, Arunachal Pradesh, Orissa and Bihar.

14.3 Fair Average Quality (FAQ) of foodgrains not ensured

The scheme provided that FCI was to issue foodgrains of best available
quality, which would in any case at least be of fair average quality. The
district collector was to ensure that the foodgrains of at least FAQ were issued
by FCI. This was to be ensured through a joint inspection by a team consisting
of the FCI representative and a nominee of the collector.

Based on the records made available to audit at the district/school level in 30

state/union territories, audit noticed as follows.
• No inspections with regard to FAQ had been carried out in the
states/union territories of Jammu and Kashmir, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands, Uttar Pradesh and Pondicherry.
• In Meghalaya, prescribed monthly reports certifying the foodgrains as
of FAQ were not being furnished to Education Department.
• Test checks of schools in Orissa, West Bengal and Assam showed that
there was no mechanism in place to check the quality and quantity of
foodgrains.
• In the Bokaro district of Jharkhand, based on complaints, the quality of
rice was got tested by the district collector, and results indicated
adulteration beyond prescribed limits.
• In the surprise visits to the schools of four states (Orissa, Punjab,
Haryana and Tripura) by audit, the samples of rice were collected in
polypacks and sent for laboratory examination. The test of quality of
rice revealed that in three states, the rice was adulterated and not fit for
human consumption.
No. of schools
Conformed to Adulterated and not fit
Name of state visited/samples
specification for human consumption
collected
Haryana 18 14 04
Punjab 09 01 08
Orissa 12 05 07
Tripura 08 08 Nil
Source: Based on samples collected in four states only through surprise checks

21
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Recommendations

™ The Ministry/states should take steps to address the causes that led
to disruption in serving cooked MDM to the children so as to
minimize the scope for such disruptions.
™ The Ministry/states should co-ordinate with FCI to ensure that
stock out situations do not recur in future.
™ The state governments should ensure that the prescribed
inspections as envisaged in the guidelines are carried out so that
the standards of FAQ are met.

15. Learning level

The Ministry proposed improving learning levels of children as one of the

basic objectives in its scheme guidelines of 2004 but dropped the same in the
revised scheme of 2006. No reasons for omitting this objective from the
scheme were available either in EFC memorandum or the Cabinet Note. Even
during the intervening period the Ministry neither prescribed any
mechanism/criteria to measure the improvement in learning level of children
availing the midday meal nor collected the data from schools on learning
levels. In the absence of any criteria/parameters for measurement of learning
levels and without collection of pertinent data, it was not clear as to how the
Ministry had intended to monitor the achievement of this objective. The
Ministry quoted an independent evaluation undertaken by National Council of
Educational Research and Training (NCERT) which spoke of an enhancement
in the learning levels of children due to the midday meal. Though this
important qualitative indicator could be assessed, no systematic assessment of
the learning levels was designed nor was further evaluation carried out. The
reasons for this particular objective being dropped from the scheme within two
years of its insertion were not furnished.

Analysis in audit of the impact of the scheme on learning levels of children in

the sample units by classifying the scores obtained by children in three
categories (i.e. those obtaining 60 per cent marks, 50 per cent marks and 33
per cent marks) and analysing the data progression in terms of marks obtained
in successive years disclosed that in 12 states/union territories (Chandigarh,
Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar,
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and West Bengal) the percentage of
children in the three categories fluctuated during 2002-07 without any clear
trend of increase or decrease. While improvement in the learning levels was
noticed in the states/union territories of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Pondicherry. In the states/union territory
of Orissa, Tripura and Dadra & Nagar Haveli, the data provided by the state
government on learning levels of children did not indicate any clear trend.
Related data was not made available by the states of Uttar Pradesh, Arunachal
Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya and Daman
and Diu.

22
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

The Ministry did not prescribe any criteria for measurement of learning levels
despite including this as a scheme objective in 2004. This objective was
subsequently omitted in the revised scheme guidelines. Sample check of
selected schools by audit did not reveal any definite progressive rise in the
learning levels of the children.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that it had not omitted the objective on
learning level and the scheme objective ‘belonging to disadvantaged sections
to attend schools more regularly and help them concentrate on class rooms
activities’ encompassed achievement levels. It also stated that MDM could
contribute only partly in improving the learning levels of the children and,
therefore, this was not specifically included in the objective of the revised
scheme 2006.

The reply is inconsistent with the scheme objectives of 2004, which

specifically provided for enhancement of learning level. Moreover, the
revised objectives were specific to the poor and the disadvantaged children.
Even if the Ministry’s contention that midday meal could contribute only
partly in improving the learning levels of children is accepted, the Ministry
should have put in place a system of measurement and evaluation of the
scheme impact on learning levels to ascertain the degree of its contribution.

16. Drawal of foodgrains in excess of requirement

As per the scheme guidelines, the state nodal departments were to furnish to
the Ministry, by 15th January every year, a district-wise request for allocation
of foodgrains based on the enrolment data of eligible primary schools and
EGS/AIE centers as on the preceding 30th September and anticipated
enrolment in the next financial year. Based on the request, the Ministry in
turn, allocated foodgrains district-wise. The Ministry did not maintain figures
of actual enrolment for the various states.

It was noticed that the projected enrolment was unrealistically high and led to
significantly higher allotment of food grains by the GOI than what was drawn
as detailed in Annex-VII.

Based on the enrolment data furnished to audit and limiting it to the average
attendance rate of the children, it was noticed that in ten states there was an
unexplained excess drawal of foodgrains valued at Rs. 72.17 crore6 over the
estimated requirement during 2002-07 as worked out by audit (as shown in the
table given below). Since utilization certificates (paragrapgh 18.4) were not
being received regularly by the Ministry, the systemic imperfections and the
need for an explicit accounting for the foodgrains drawn was evident.

6
Similar instances were also noticed in the test-checked districts of four states i.e.
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Assam and Jammu & Kashmir having a financial
implication of Rs. 1.10 crore

23
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Requirement of foodgrains
as per enrolment/average Excess Implication
Off take7
Period State attendance rate of foodgrains (Rupees in
(quintals)
children/beneficiaries (quintals) lakh)
taking MDM. (Quintals)
01/2005 Tripura 200914.2 229660.1 28746 162.41
to
03/2007
09/2004 Uttar Pradesh 7537000 8305000 768000 4339.00
to
2006-07
2002-03 Kerala 873798.6 905004.2 31205.6 176.00
to
2003-04
2005-06 Manipur 70429.75 112831.91 42402.16 239.57
to
2006-07
2003-07 Meghalaya 302068.7 389149.9 87081.2 492.01
2003-04 Rajasthan 2133900 2434388* 300488 1697.76
&
2006-07
Total 7106.75
Source: Calculations based on figures supplied by States and audit conducted by (Pr.) AsG (Audit)
*Denotes actual consumption/utilization of foodgrains

The Ministry admitted in February 2008 that allocation of foodgrains based on

anticipated enrolment and average attendance rate was not realistic and from
2007-08 onwards, the Central assistance to the states was being provided on
the basis of the number of children actually availing midday meal. It further
stated that the issue of excess drawal of foodgrains as pointed out by audit was
being taken up with the states concerned for clarification.

Recommendations

™ The Ministry should analyse the lifting of foodgrains by various

states over previous years.
™ The Ministry may also capture the actual average attendance
figures of children and relate it to the projected requirements
received from the states.
™ The requirements of foodgrains in schools should be assessed
realistically before allocating the foodgrains for the subsequent
years.
™ The reasons for excess drawal of foodgrains should be probed by
the Ministry.

7
In the states of Meghalaya, Kerala and Tripura the offtake figures reported by the
Ministry was at variance with those collected by the state Pr. AsG.

24
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

17. Coverage of school/EGS/AIE centres

The Scheme guidelines of 1995 intended to cover all government, local body
and all government-aided primary schools initially in 2408 blocks in the
country, extending to all blocks countrywide by 1997-98. The ambit of the
scheme was further extended in 2002 to all EGS/AIE centers. However, even
after more than twelve years of implementation of the Scheme, all the
schools/EGS/AIE centers were not covered in eight states8 (Annex-VIII). As
a consequence, 8.90 lakh children in these states/union territories were
deprived of the MDM.

Recommendation

™ The Ministry/states should take steps to ensure coverage of all the

eligible schools/EGS/AIE centers under MDM scheme.

18. System of Internal controls

18.1 Mismatch

Neither the Ministry nor the state governments correlated the element of
‘utilisation of foodgrains’ and ‘utilisation of cooking cost’ which would have
enabled them to assess the status and manner of implementation of the scheme
to an extent. Analysis of the utilisation of cooking cost and foodgrains lifted
from the data provided by the Ministry disclosed a mismatch between
foodgrains lifted and cooking cost utilised in 14 states9 (Annex-IX).

In selected districts of Uttar Pradesh, difference between percentage utilisation

of foodgrains and cooking cost ranged from 11 per cent to 41 per cent.
Mismatch between utilization of foodgrains and cooking cost had a financial
implication of Rs. 79.29 crore in the states of Assam, Rajasthan and Orissa.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that the periods for allocation of
foodgrains and for the release of Central assistance towards cooking cost were
different and it was not correct to compare the two. The reply is not tenable,
as the mismatch has been worked out based on the figures furnished by the
Ministry in which the period of foodgrains lifted and cooking cost utilised
were shown to be the same. The Ministry was, however, unable to furnish any
other data, which could reflect corresponding positions of release and
utilisation of foodgrains and cooking cost.

The Ministry also stated that from April 2007, it had taken steps to
synchronise the allocation of foodgrains and cooking cost.

8
Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Bihar
and Manipur
9
Bihar, Chattisgarh, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Meghalaya,
Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, West Bengal and Pondicherry

25
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Instances of mismatch between quantities of foodgrains supplied by FCI and

lifted by state agencies were also noticed in five states10. The variation in the
figures of foodgrains ranged up to 16720 quintals and indicates the possibility
of misappropriation and pilferage. This indicates the need for the states to
exercise better controls to provide assurance against misuse/theft and waste.

18.2 Delay in release of funds

As per the scheme guidelines, the Ministry was to release funds towards
central assistance for cooking costs to states in two installments for the period
July-December in the preceding May/June and for the period January-June in
the preceding November/December. In most cases during 2002-07
considerable delays ranging up to more than ten months in releasing funds for
cooking cost were noticed. The delay indicated in the Annex-X.

The Ministry attributed in February 2008 the delays to late receipt of proposals
from the states, delay in ascertaining the unspent balance position and other
procedural delays. It also stated that up to 2006-07, the Department released
funds to states/union territories based on their submission of complete
proposals. It added that in order to streamline the procedure, in 2007-08, it
had constituted a Programme Approval Board, which considered and approved
the Annual Work Plan and Budget of the states/union territories.

18.3 Diversion of funds and foodgrains

Diversion of funds and foodgrains was noticed in 11 states. Such large

diversions not only affected the smooth implementation of the scheme but also
point to the weak internal controls in the states and lack of accountability.
Sl.
State Extent of diversion
No.
1. Kerala Diversion of 40 per cent foodgrains worth Rs. 42.51 crore for
upper primary classes during 2002-07.
2. Jharkhand Foodgrains worth Rs. 2.24 crore diverted towards BPL under
TPDS during 2004-07.
3. Uttar Pradesh 440 MT foodgrains lifted from FCI Bulundshahar seized in
Delhi.
4. Andhra Pradesh Cooking cost worth Rs. 3.26 crore diverted towards
construction of kitchen sheds.
5. Nagaland Foodgrains worth Rs. 6.86 crore lifted from FCI was sold and
proceeds deposited with Directorate of School Education
during 2002-04.
6. Assam Cooking cost was diverted for purchase of utensils and LPG.
7. Andaman & Rs. 2.03 crore worth foodgrains diverted to other centrally
Nicobar Islands sponsored schemes.
8. Meghalaya In one district the cooking cost of Rs. 5.06 lakh was diverted
for payment of salaries to teachers of non-government
primary schools.

10
Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa and Arunachal Pradesh

26
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Sl.
State Extent of diversion
No.
9. Bihar 782.21 quintals of rice diverted for relief work at Buxar and
not recouped.
10. West Bengal Rs. 92.69 crore worth cooking cost diverted for kitchen sheds,
cooking devices and MME.
11. Madhya Pradesh Rs. 17.78 lakh diverted for printing of cards, stationery, audit
fee etc.
Source: Figures from audit reports compiled by State (Pr.) AsG (audit)

18.4. Quarterly progress reports (QPRs) and utilization certificates

(UCs)

The state nodal departments were to furnish monthly reports on offtake of

foodgrains, utilization certificates in respect of central assistance provided for
foodgrains/cooking cost and detailed quarterly progress reports to the
Ministry. The returns were meant to facilitate subsequent allotment of
foodgrains by the Ministry and also to monitor implementation of the scheme
in the states. It was observed that the utilization certificates (UCs)/reports
were not being received in the Ministry regularly.

QPRs

Out of 280 quarterly progress reports (QPR) due during 2005-07, only 159 had
been received in the Ministry. QPRs had been received for all the quarters
from only three states/UT viz. Gujarat, Bihar and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. A
sample check of 95 quarterly progress reports by audit revealed that except for
the QPR of December 2006, these reports were simply kept on record rather
than being analyzed by the Ministry for assurance and remedial measures, if
any.

The Ministry accepted the audit findings and stated in February 2008 that it
had started analyzing the QPRs after being provided with additional human
resource from 2006.

UCs

As many as nine states furnished incorrect UCs without ascertaining the

position of utilization of funds as per the details given below:-
Sl.
Name of state Period Status
No.
1. Rajasthan 2006-07 UCs for Rs. 302.96 crore towards cooking cost sent to
GOI without obtaining the same from the implementing
agencies.
2. Madhya Pradesh 2006-07 Over reporting of utilization of foodgrains by Rs. 1.80
crore.
3. Daman & Diu 2005-07 Over reporting of utilization of foodgrains by Rs. 2.81
lakh.
4. Manipur 2006-07 Rs. 4.17 crore received as cooking cost was not allocated
to implementing agencies but shown as fully utilized.

27
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Sl.
Name of state Period Status
No.
5. West Bengal 2006-07 Rs. 136.50 crore remained unutilised at district level as of
March 2007 but state government reported the entire
amount as spent in its UC to GOI.
6. Andhra Pradesh 2004-05 Rs. 76 crore received in 2004-05 was not released to
districts but reported as having been utilized.
7. Haryana 2006-07 Directorate of Elementary Education furnished UCs to
GOI without obtaining the same from districts. In 7 test
checked districts unutilised balances increased from
Rs. 81.95 lakh in 2003-04 to Rs. 925.71 lakh in 2006-07.
However, the directorate had reported the entire
allocation of districts as spent to GOI.
8. Arunachal 2006-07 Unspent balance was shown as Rs. 45 lakh instead of
Pradesh Rs. 90 lakh.
9. Bihar 2005-07 UC for Rs. 110.44 crore was submitted by districts
without receipt of utilization from implementing
agencies.

The states of Maharashtra, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Chandigarh and

Uttar Pradesh did not submit UCs to Government of India regularly.

18.5 Excess claim of transportation charges

As per the scheme guidelines, the Central government was to reimburse the
actual cost of transportation of foodgrains from the nearest FCI godown to the
primary school subject to a prescribed ceiling. In seven states (Uttar Pradesh,
Chandigarh, Chattisgarh, Rajasthan, Meghalaya, Tripura and West Bengal),
the nodal agencies claimed transport charges in excess of the actuals leading to
an excess claim of Rs. 102.84 crore during 2002-07 as detailed in Annex-XI.
It was not clear whether any accountability had been fixed for such
misrepresentation and wrong claims.

18.6 Poor internal controls at schools

Sample check of schools by audit revealed that in as many as 17 states/union

territories (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Tripura, Pondicherry, Uttar
Pradesh, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh,
Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Kerala, Punjab, Meghalaya,
Orissa, Bihar and Manipur), all the essential records relating to receipt and
issue of foodgrains and other ingredients of meals, quantity of meal cooked
and served, presence of parents at the time of cooking, tasting and serving of
meal were not maintained. Thus, actual utilisation of foodgrains, serving of
wholesome meals to the children and correctness of the claim of cooking costs
by the schools was not verifiable.

28
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Recommendation

™ The Ministry/state governments need to strengthen the internal

controls as well as the inspection and monitoring mechanism at all
levels. Accountability for maintenance of records at various levels
should be prescribed and monitored.

19. Deficient monitoring of convergence with other schemes

The scheme of 2006 provides for assistance, towards infrastructural support

viz. kitchen-cum-store, kitchen devices and drinking water. The scheme was
to be continued in close convergence with several other development
programmes under various ministries (Annex-XII).

However, data regarding budget allotted and expenditure incurred by different

ministries through various Centrally Sponsored schemes on the above
components of the scheme was neither available with the Ministry of Human
Resource Development nor with any of states implementing the programme.
Thus, the HRD Ministry, which was responsible for implementing the scheme,
remained unaware of how the essential parts (health, drinking water etc.) of
the whole were being funded from other sources.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that the MDM scheme did not provide
assistance for provision of water facilities, health etc. under the scheme and
the component providing for kitchen sheds had been introduced in the scheme
only from 2006-07 and was being monitored very closely now.

The reply is not tenable since as per the scheme guidelines 2006, the scheme
was to be implemented in convergence (the modalities of which, however,
remained undefined) with several other developmental programmes so that all
the requirements of the programme were fully met in the shortest possible
time-frame. Projecting the issues of critical health and infrastructure
provisions in the field in isolation and as unrelated to the Ministry’s general
oversight of the scheme ignored the shortcoming in the functioning of the
scheme. The Ministry’s role cannot be viewed as mere fund releasing agency
rather than an actively monitoring the programme delivery in its entirety.

20. Provisioning of cooking infrastructure

The essential infrastructure for implementation of the cooked midday meal

scheme was the pucca kitchen-cum-store, kitchen devices and clean drinking
water. However, during audit of selected schools, deficiencies relating to
kitchen sheds, kitchen devices and facility of clean drinking water were
noticed in 20 states11. (Annex-XIII). In two states Punjab and Himachal
11
Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, Assam, Chattisgarh, Himachal
Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Daman & Diu, Meghalaya,
Orissa, Tripura, Bihar, Manipur, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh

29
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

Pradesh (100 per cent of test checked schools) and in Meghalaya (99.6 per
cent of the test checked schools) did not have kitchen sheds. In Madhya
Pradesh (96 per cent of the test checked schools) did not have kitchen sheds.
In Chattisgarh (77 per cent of the test checked schools) and in Meghalaya (76
per cent of the test checked schools) did not have drinking water facility.

As a result of the non-availability of pucca kitchen sheds, the meal was being
prepared in the open as well in the classrooms, exposing the children to health
hazards besides disrupting classes. Instances of foodgrains being stored in the
classrooms were also noticed in the test-checked schools of 11 states12, thus
reducing space for classes to be held.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that Central assistance for kitchen sheds
was being provided in a phased manner and it intended to cover all schools by
2008-09.

Recommendation

™ The Ministry/states should ensure that adequate infrastructure i.e.

provision of kitchen sheds, kitchen devices and facility of drinking
water are available in all schools.

21. Adverse impact on teaching and learning

The Ministry prescribed in its guidelines that teachers should not be assigned
responsibilities that would interfere with teaching and learning activities. Test
check of the selected schools revealed that in most states the teachers were
actively involved in receipt of foodgrains, procurement of vegetables and
condiments, supervision of cooking and serving of meals thereby leading to a
loss of valuable teaching time. The loss of teaching time evidenced in the
sample was in the range of 11-30 hours per week in six states13. In Orissa and
Daman & Diu it constituted 41 per cent and 33 per cent of the teaching time
respectively. Similar instances were also noticed in the states of West Bengal,
Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,
Kerala, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Madhya Pradesh. In Meghalaya, food
was cooked by teachers and community members/parents in 40 per cent of the
schools as stated before the Programme Approval Board (April 2007). In
Pondicherry, 11 teachers were posted as full time kitchen in charge in the
central kitchens which effectively meant that these teachers did not teach at
all.

In West Bengal, surprise check of 139 schools by audit revealed that 17 per
cent of the children left school after taking the meal, rather than attending
post-meal classes. Similarly, in Bihar, in test checked schools 10 per cent to
80 per cent of the children left the schools after taking midday meal.

12
Haryana, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Dadra and Nagar
Haveli, Madhya Pradesh, Daman and Diu, Orissa and Gujarat.
13
Jammu and Kashmir, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana and Rajasthan

30
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that it was the responsibility of the state
governments to ensure that the serving of midday meal did not have adverse
impact on teaching and learning and that it has been stressed upon from time
to time in various meetings held in the Ministry.

The responsibility of ensuring that the MDM does not adversely affect the
main objective of education cannot be left entirely to the states. Ministry
should undertake demonstrable efforts to ensure that the programme does not
have any adverse impact on the main objectives of the schools.

Recommendation

™ The Ministry should put a system in place to ensure that teaching

time of the teachers is not lost on midday meal related activities
and that the education of the children takes priority.

22. Avoidable payment of sales tax

The state governments levy sales tax on the foodgrains supplied by the Food
Corporation of India. This tax was being reimbursed by the Ministry while
making payments to the FCI under the scheme. However, it was noticed that
some of the states had exempted levy of sales tax on foodgrains lifted from
FCI under the scheme. Thus, while the Government had been buying
foodgrains at subsidised rates, it was also making huge payments on account
of sales tax. This meant that, in effect, the scheme was not run economically
or efficiently when it came to sourcing of foodgrains. This oversight by the
Ministry and duplication had a substantial financial implication as Rs. 59.53
crore had been paid as sales tax for supplies to states during the years 2002-03
to 2006-07.

The Ministry admitted the audit finding and stated in February 2008 that the
state Governments had been advised to take necessary action in the matter for
obtaining exemption from payment of sales tax.

Recommendation

™ The Government may take up the matter with relevant states to

seek exemption of payment of sale tax so as to source foodgrains
economically and efficiently for the scheme.

23. Monitoring and evaluation

The original scheme provided for supervision, monitoring and evaluation by

setting up committees at block, district and state levels to generate community
support for the goal of universalizing primary education. At the national level
the scheme had no monitoring in place until 2004 when a National level
Steering cum Monitoring Committee was prescribed in the revised scheme
(September 2004). The Steering cum Monitoring Committees (SMC) were to
be set up at four levels viz. National, State, District and Block with functions

31
Report No. PA 13 of 2008

of guidance, monitoring, coordination and taking action on reports of

independent monitoring agencies. National and State-level SMCs were
expected to meet at least once every six months, and District and Block level
SMCs, at least once a quarter.
• At the national level the SMC had met only twice and that too only in
2005 and never thereafter as against the prescribed five meetings
during December 2004 to March 2007.
• At the state level the SMCs were not constituted in four states/union
territories (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Pondicherry, Daman and
Diu and Maharashtra).
• In Uttar Pradesh state level SMC was constituted only in August 2007.
• In 10 states/union territories14 the meetings were not held at all or held
only once against the prescribed five meetings during December 2004
to March 2007.
• At the district/block level, the SMCs were not constituted in four
states/union territories (Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andaman and
Nicobar Islands and Dadra and Nagar Haveli) and in 11 states15
meetings at district and block level were held irregularly.
• Records of meetings of SMCs at the state level were not furnished to
audit by four states and at district/block level by five states.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that the National SMC had been recently
reconstituted in September 2007 and important initiatives like development of
national wide web enabled Management Information system, nation wide
evaluation study through National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad were
under active preparation.

The fact, however, remains that despite 12 years of implementation of the

scheme, the Ministry had been unable to finalise the Management Information
System for reliable data capture from states and for monitoring the programme
as envisaged in its scheme of 1995.

24. Management, Monitoring and Evaluation grant

The Scheme provided for grant of Central assistance for Management,

Monitoring and Evaluation (MME) at the rate of not less than 0.9 per cent of
the total assistance on supply of free foodgrains, actual cost on transportation
of foodgrains and cooking cost for the year 2004-05 and at the rate of not less
than 1.8 per cent of such total assistance of 2005-06 with 0.1 per cent and 0.2
per cent of the total assistance to be retained by Central Government during
2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively. However, no funds could be released for

14
Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli, Kerala, Orissa, Tripura, Manipur.
15
Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Gujarat,
Orissa, Tripura, West Bengal, Bihar and Haryana

32
 Report No. PA 13 of 2008

this component during 2004-05 as norms for expenditure were notified by the
National Steering-cum-Monitoring Committee only in September 2005. The
states could utilise only Rs. 20.22 crore i.e. 50.16 per cent out of the total
funds of Rs. 40.31 crore released to them during 2005-06. The Ministry
during 2005-06 and 2006-07 had released only Rs. 65.17 lakh and Rs. 0.65
lakh out of the budget allocation of Rs. 4.5 crore and Rs. 8.25 crore under the
central component of the MME grant.

The Ministry stated in February 2008 that the states had been urged to utilise
the MME component effectively to the optimum level to mainly institute
suitable monitoring mechanism and to conduct independent evaluation studies.

(A.K. Thakur)
New Delhi Director General of Audit
Dated: Central Revenues

COUNTERSIGNED

New Delhi (Vinod Rai)

Dated: Comptroller and Auditor General of India

33