7. Conclusion and limitations of the study
In the past, the banking sector’s performance measurement has been carried out by many researchers using DEA in many countries. It may be noted that the present study cannot be compared with the global research as each country has its regulations, parameters, and the result vary significantly from place to place. It may be noted that in India, very few research activities (Saha and Ravisankar, 2000; Ray, 2016; Bhattacharyya et al., 1997; Mukherjee et al., 2002; Das and Ghosh, 2009; Tabak and Tecles, 2010; Sathye, 2003) related to performance measurement of the banking industry have been carried out in the past. As of today, these eight studies are of less significance as the first two research activities were carried out in the PSBs domain and, later ,six were studied during the period when the PSBs were dominating, and the PVBs were in the emerging phase and were trying to mark their presence.
Kaur and Gupta (2015) did not consider the number of offices, the number of employees in the inputs which are very important in evaluating the performance of banks. In outputs, the returns on equity and return on assets have not been considered. The consideration of all these factors may influence the results of the model, as they are having considerable weight, and are found significant in the present research work. It may be noted that the past research results mentioned so far in this section are contradictory to the findings of the present study, which highlighted that the private sectors banks are more efficient than the banks of the public sector in India. The present investigation results are very much in parallel with the findings of Kumbhakar and Sarkar (2003), Denizer (1999), and Sanyal and Shankar (2011).