SIRF Applicants
Table 1: RF proposals received and approved in 2006-07
| Year | Received | Reviewed | Short-listed | Awarded |
| 2006 | 72 | 41 | 16 | 15 |
| 2007 | 143 | 130 | 11 | 10 |
| Total | 215 | 171 | 27 | 25 |
Table 2: AG proposals received and approved in 2006-07
| Year | Received | Reviewed | Approved | Contract signed |
| 2006 | 71 | 71 | 61 | 58 |
| 2007 | 406 | 392 | 95 | 91 |
| Total | 477 | 463 | 156 | 149 |
Table 3: SIRF Research Fellow (RF) Proposals by Ethnic and Caste Community
| Community | RF 2006 | RF 2007 | Total | |||
| Received | Approved | Received | Approved | Received | Approved | |
| A.Men | ||||||
| A1. Hill community | ||||||
| 1. High-caste Hindus | 33 | 4 | 64 | 3 | 97 | 7 |
| 2. Janajati | ||||||
| Advantaged Group* | 4 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 1 |
| Marginalised Group | 5 | 1 | 17 | 3 | 22 | 4 |
| 3. Dalit | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 2 |
| Subtotal | 43 | 7 | 92 | 7 | 135 | 14 |
| A2. Madheshi Community | ||||||
| 1. High - caste Hindus | 5 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 16 | 0 |
| 2. Mid-caste Hindus | 6 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 14 | 2 |
| 3. Janajati | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| 4. Dalit | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| 5.Muslim | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Subtotal | 15 | 4 | 24 | 1 | 39 | 5 |
| B. Women | ||||||
| B1. Hill Community | ||||||
| 1. High-caste Hindus | 7 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 20 | 2 |
| 2. Janajati | ||||||
| Advantaged Group* | 4 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 12 | 3 |
| Marginalised Group | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 |
| 3. Dalit | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Subtotal | 13 | 4 | 25 | 2 | 38 | 6 |
| B2. Madheshi Community | ||||||
| 1. High - caste Hindus | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 2. Mid- caste Hindus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3.Janajati | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 4. Dalit | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5.Muslim | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Subtotal | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 72 | 15 | 143 | 10 | 215 | 26 |
Source: SIRF Mid Term Report, Nov 2007




