NIPER Mohali has long struggled with staffing the right individuals in key positions. When Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally took charge, he recognized the urgent need to fill faculty positions. However, he was restricted from making faculty recruitments.
Instead, the institute saw a surge in consultant appointments. A public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Indian Express, March 21, 2013) challenged the appointment of five consultants. The PIL alleged that these appointments were arbitrary and based on a “pick and choose” approach.
Following the PIL, the High Court issued notices to the then-Officiating Director, Dr. K. K. Bhutani. The respondents were required to respond to allegations raised by Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, a well-known RTI activist. The PIL specifically questioned the appointments of Mr. R. K. Bhatti, Mr. Hari Mohan, Dr. A. S. Bhatia, and others, alleging that Dr. Bhutani, in collusion with Registrar PJP Singh Waraich, had been appointing close associates as consultants while bypassing proper selection procedures. Additionally, these consultants were paid hefty consolidated salaries.
The consultants were initially hired on an ad hoc basis and later continued against regular posts without the necessary approval from the Academic Planning and Development Committee (APDC), a violation of NIPER rules.
The issue was raised in the Rajya Sabha by Dr. Janardhan Waghmare (Unstarred Question No. 2058, answered on March 15, 2013). He sought details on consultants hired by NIPER Mohali, the policy for hiring retired personnel, their salaries, and pensions.
In response, it was revealed that multiple consultants had been appointed, including Mr. Hari Mohan (Retd., Controller of Administration, CSIO, Chandigarh), who joined as a consultant on June 15, 2011. Notably, the Board of Governors (BoG) only ratified his appointment in its 54th meeting on August 2, 2012—after the matter became public.
However, Mr. Hari Mohan had requested a Suspension of Enrollment on November 25, 2011, meaning he was employed as a consultant while simultaneously practicing.
The PIL alleged that no proper selection process, such as open advertisement for applications, was followed. Among the five consultants, Mr. Hari Mohan’s appointment was particularly controversial. He was hired as a Consultant (Legal) during Dr. Bhutani’s tenure and had been in the position for nearly five years before Dr. Akkinepally joined as the regular Director.
From the outset, Mr. Hari Mohan’s hiring was questionable, as the BoG was not informed. Crucially, it was concealed that he was a practicing lawyer registered with the Bar Council of India—an apparent conflict of interest, as practicing lawyers are prohibited from holding such full-time positions.
Mr. Hari Mohan’s tenure was renewed annually without any performance evaluation. During his time at NIPER Mohali, legal disputes involving the institute increased significantly. Dr. Akkinepally observed that this rise in legal cases was being driven by a negative approach, which served to justify the continued employment of the Consultant (Legal). Recognizing the financial and operational strain of excessive legal cases in a small institute with only 150 employees—over a third of whom were engaged in legal disputes—Dr. Akkinepally decided to address the issue.
His decision to remove Mr. Hari Mohan was opposed by Registrar PJP Singh Waraich, who had been instrumental in supporting the consultant. Mr. Hari Mohan had been given accommodation on the NIPER campus at little to no cost. Even after his tenure ended, he continued to occupy campus housing despite not being on the institute’s payroll or faculty.
Dr. Akkinepally believed that no individual should hold such a position indefinitely. However, his decision to remove Mr. Hari Mohan did not sit well with Dr. V. M. Katoch, Chairman of the Board of Governors, and Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, Joint Secretary of the Department of Pharmaceuticals.
A particularly shocking revelation was that Mr. Hari Mohan was actively practicing law in the High Court while serving as a Consultant (Legal) at NIPER. Former faculty member Dr. Nilanjan Roy obtained official records confirming his registration with the Bar Council of India. This conflict of interest was ignored by those in charge.
Under Mr. Hari Mohan’s tenure, the highest number of legal cases against NIPER Mohali were filed. He played a crucial role in the dismissal of three faculty members who had questioned administrative decisions. To Dr. Akkinepally, it seemed as though Mr. Hari Mohan was being used as a “contract killer”—brought in under the guise of a Consultant (Legal) to eliminate dissenting voices against Dr. Bhutani and Mr. Waraich.
The case of Mr. Hari Mohan raises serious concerns about governance, transparency, and accountability in NIPER Mohali’s administration. It underscores the need for stringent oversight in consultant appointments to prevent the misuse of authority and resources.
