Border Area Development MCQ — 51 Practice Questions with Answers

Explanation

The correct dated sequence is 3 December 2024, VVP-I, Union Territory of Ladakh, and 35 villages. The sequences ending in 46 villages, 51 villages and 75 villages retain the date and programme frame but change the Ladakh coverage count, so they do not match the sourced fact.

Explanation

The cited PIB release says that, during 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs got a BADP evaluation study done by the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. The National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj is a rural-development training institution, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration is the civil-service training academy, and the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management is a central training institute; none of these is named in the cited fact for this BADP evaluation study.

Explanation

The cited Economic Review fact gives Rs. 13.21 crore utilised, Rs. 40.00 crore allocation, Rs. 60.90 crore total available funds, and 299 works completed. Arranged from lowest to highest, the correct sequence is utilised amount, allocation, total available funds, and completed works. Sequences that place allocation before utilisation, total available funds before allocation, or reverse the three financial figures break this numerical order.

Explanation

The Assertion is true because the 2015 changes added third-party inspection and quality control. The Reason is also true because this function was assigned to National Quality Monitors designated under the Ministry of Home Affairs, which directly explains the external quality-control layer. State public works departments, district vigilance bodies and finance-audit cells are plausible institutions, but they are not the designated third-party quality-control mechanism in this cited fact.

Explanation

The Assertion is true because the Union Cabinet approval was on 4 April 2025 and the scheme approved was VVP-II as a Central Sector Scheme. The Reason is also true because the same fact states 100% Central funding. That funding feature directly supports the Central Sector Scheme description; denying either the date-scheme classification or the funding would contradict the cited PIB fact.