Q.A state government's rural drinking-water scheme spent its entire sanctioned budget on time and built the planned number of water tanks, but two years later most villages covered by the scheme still report no reliable improvement in access to clean drinking water. Which of the 'three Es' has this scheme most clearly failed, and which branch of auditing would have identified this?

Spending the budget on time and building the planned tanks satisfies economy and efficiency, but the missing real-world improvement in water access is a clear effectiveness failure.

Step 1 — Check Economy. The scheme spent its sanctioned budget without apparent overspending or extravagance — economy appears satisfied on these facts.

Step 2 — Check Efficiency. The scheme built the planned number of water tanks on time, suggesting the input-to-output relationship (budget and time to tanks built) was reasonably optimal — efficiency also appears satisfied.

Step 3 — Check Effectiveness. Despite meeting both the economy and efficiency tests, the scheme's actual PURPOSE — reliable access to clean drinking water for the covered villages — has not been achieved two years later. This is a clear effectiveness failure: outputs (tanks) were delivered, but the real-world outcome (clean water access) was not. …