Absorbing Twenty Extra Trainees Within a Capped Training Budget
The Block Development Officer, Sitapur, has ₹2,40,000 sanctioned for a two-day skill-training camp. Office norms fix the split: 60 per cent for participant stipend, 25 per cent for venue and refreshments, and the rest for printing. One hundred fifty candidates are confirmed, and stipend is paid per candidate per day. Two days before the camp, twenty more candidates are confirmed. The printing quotation of ₹36,000 cannot be reduced below ₹30,000 because the workbook is already typeset, and the venue charge of ₹60,000 is contracted. The accountant says the 60 per cent stipend line is a hard ceiling and cannot be crossed; the training officer says cutting the stipend will cause dropouts. You must compute the original per-day stipend, test whether the camp can absorb the extra twenty candidates within the sanctioned amount, and propose a revised plan in whole rupees that can be defended on file.
1. Compute the original per-candidate-per-day stipend and verify that the three heads exhaust the sanction.
Read the worked answer
- Total sanction: ₹2,40,000.
- Stipend: 60% × 2,40,000 = ₹1,44,000.
- Venue and refreshments: 25% × 2,40,000 = ₹60,000.
- Printing: remainder = 2,40,000 − 1,44,000 − 60,000 = ₹36,000, which is 15%.
- Participant-days: 150 candidates × 2 days = 300.
- Stipend per candidate per day: 1,44,000 ÷ 300 = ₹480.
The three heads sum to 100% and to ₹2,40,000, so there is no hidden slack in the original plan. That matters for the next step: any expansion must be funded by shifting between heads or by changing the rate, since the total has no cushion.
2. With 170 candidates, what stipend amount is required at ₹480, and what is the shortfall? Is the 60 per cent ceiling or the total sanction the binding constraint?
Read the worked answer
- Participant-days become 170 × 2 = 340.
- Stipend required at ₹480: 340 × 480 = ₹1,63,200.
- Shortfall against the 60% stipend ceiling: 1,63,200 − 1,44,000 = ₹19,200.
- Shortfall against the total sanction: 1,63,200 + 60,000 + 36,000 = ₹2,59,200, which is ₹19,200 above ₹2,40,000.
Both constraints bind by the same amount, because the other two heads are either contracted or at their floor. The maximum relief available from the other heads is only 36,000 − 30,000 = ₹6,000, by cutting printing to its floor. Even then, ₹6,000 does not cover ₹19,200. So the stipend rate itself must fall; neither the ceiling nor the total can be satisfied while keeping ₹480.
3. Propose a revised stipend in whole rupees, show the arithmetic, and justify the choice against the training officer's objection.
Read the worked answer
Option A - respect the 60 per cent ceiling. Maximum stipend = ₹1,44,000. Per participant-day = 1,44,000 ÷ 340 = ₹423.53, so ₹423. Check: 340 × 423 = ₹1,43,820, leaving ₹180 unused within the ceiling. Total outgo = 1,43,820 + 60,000 + 36,000 = ₹2,39,820, within sanction.
Option B - seek a written waiver of the ceiling and fund the gap from printing. Cut printing to its floor of ₹30,000, giving ₹6,000 of relief. Maximum stipend = 2,40,000 − 60,000 − 30,000 = ₹1,50,000. Per participant-day = 1,50,000 ÷ 340 = ₹441.17, so ₹441. Check: 340 × 441 = ₹1,49,940; total = 1,49,940 + 60,000 + 30,000 = ₹2,39,940.
Recommendation: put Option A into effect immediately so the camp can proceed lawfully, and simultaneously move a note for Option B. Breaking a financial ceiling unilaterally is not a permissible fix, but ₹441 preserves ₹18 more per participant-day than ₹423 and is worth the written approval. The training officer's dropout concern is addressed by showing the exact difference (₹18 per day) rather than by abandoning the norm.