With reference to ‘Quality Council of India (QCI)’, consider the following statements: 1. QCI was set up jointly by the Government of India and the Indian Industry. 2. Chairman of QCI is appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendations of the industry to the Government. Which of the above statements is/are correct?

This source explicitly lists the proposition 'QCI was set up jointly by the Government of India and the Indian Industry' as a statement to consider—showing the claim exists in standard exam material.

A student could note this as a commonly asserted claim and cross-check authoritative QCI founding documents or government notifications to confirm or refute it.

Describes 'public-private partnership (PPP)' and 'joint sector' as an accepted pattern where government and private sector form joint arrangements.

Use this pattern to reason that organizations with 'joint' government–industry origins are often described as PPPs and look for similar language in QCI's founding records.

Gives an example of a body (FSDC) that was 'set up by the Government of India' and describes how such institutional origins are documented (e.g., gazette notification, chair and membership).

A student could compare the formal origin language (e.g., 'set up by the Government' vs. 'set up jointly with industry') in official notifications for QCI to judge whether it was a government-only creation or a joint initiative.

Explains that IFCI was established by a specific Act of Parliament, illustrating that some institutions are statutory creations of government rather than joint ventures.

Check whether QCI has a statutory act, a government notification, or a jointly issued founding document to distinguish the mode of establishment.

Shows a pattern where the Prime Minister is the Chairperson of a national policy body (NITI Aayog) and the PM nominates/sappoints key office-holders (vice‑chair, CEO, full‑time members).

A student could use this pattern (PM chairs/appoints leaders of some national bodies) plus a list of bodies headed by chairpersons to check whether QCI is similarly structured or listed among bodies where PM appoints the chair.

Notes that the Prime Minister was the chairman of the erstwhile Planning Commission—another example of the PM serving as chair of a national commission.

Use the Planning Commission precedent to infer that certain high‑level commissions/bodies historically have the PM as chair; then check governance documents for QCI to see if it follows that model.

Explains the general appointment pattern at the centre: ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, indicating the PM’s formal role in recommending appointments.

Apply the general rule that the PM advises appointments to ask whether the QCI chair is a political appointment requiring PM recommendation or an independent/statutory appointment by some other authority.

Article 75 summary reiterates that the President appoints ministers on PM’s advice, reinforcing the convention that the PM’s recommendation is decisive for central appointments.

Combine this constitutional convention with knowledge of QCI’s legal status (e.g., statutory vs. autonomous non‑profit) to judge whether its chair would likely be appointed through PM’s recommendation or by another mechanism.

States QCI was set up jointly by Government of India and the Indian industry, and includes a (text) claim that the QCI Chairman is appointed by the Prime Minister on recommendations of the industry.

A student could treat this as an authoritat ive classroom source and check official QCI/Government notifications or the QCI charter to confirm whether formal appointment follows industry recommendation.

Describes a recurring pattern for high-body appointments: central government appoints Chairman/members on recommendations of a search-cum-selection committee (for CAT).

Use this pattern to hypothesize that other national bodies’ chairpersons are typically appointed by government after formal recommendations, so verify whether QCI follows a similar committee or an industry recommendation route.

Shows that for the National Consumer Commission the central government appoints President/members based on a search-cum-selection committee chaired by judiciary—illustrating another standard appointment mechanism.

Compare this common committee-based appointment model with QCI’s practice (given QCI’s industry ties in snippet 1) to judge whether industry recommendation would be an exception or aligned with norms.

Explains restrictions and conventions about appointments to constitutional service commissions, indicating formal appointment rules and conventions govern senior posts.

A student can use this to reason that senior body chairs generally follow codified appointment procedures—thus one should look for QCI’s founding document or government order to see if it prescribes industry recommendation.