The legacy of misgovernance at NIPER Mohali did not merely persist—it was institutionalised. When the newly constituted Board of Governors held its first meeting on December 9, 2022, it already carried the baggage of past failures. Two members from the previous Board found their way into the new one, which was to remain in place until November 2025. This Board itself came into existence after an inexplicable gap of more than three years—a period during which the Institute functioned without its top-most statutory authority.
This raises a fundamental question: who governed NIPER Mohali in the absence of a duly constituted Board of Governors, as mandated under the NIPER Act? During this vacuum, Mr. Rajneesh Tingal successfully engineered the creation of a so-called “NIPER Council,” an entity with no statutory backing under the Act. Despite its illegality, this Council went on to take decisions with far-reaching consequences for all NIPER institutions across the country.
It was during this interregnum—when no Board existed—that the Director of NIPER Mohali was appointed. This was a direct violation of established procedure. My own appointment as Director had followed the legally prescribed route: recommendation by the Board of Governors and final approval by the Visitor, the President of India. Mr. Tingal appeared to conveniently forget this statutory requirement, compelling me to challenge the appointment of Dr. Dulal Panda before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The reconstituted Board included Prof. R. S. Verma, who had also served on the previous Board. Mr. Mohanbir Singh Sidhu attended as Additional Director, representing the Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Punjab. As during my tenure, the Secretary himself remained conspicuously absent. This absence defeats the very purpose of Punjab’s representation, especially when the State had contributed approximately 140 acres of land to the Institute with the expectation that NIPER would meaningfully serve regional interests.
Out of the eight members physically present at the 78th Board meeting, two belonged to the previous Board, and the officiating Registrar was the same individual whom I had suspended for serious acts of omission and commission. How could any responsible Board appoint a person with a pending charge-sheet as its Secretary? The only cosmetic change this time was the allowance of virtual participation. Mr. Tingal himself attended the 78th meeting virtually.
Another surprising inclusion was Dr. Arvind Kumar Bansal, whose role in the removal of Dr. Neeraj Kumar had previously been flagged by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In December 2022, the Board proposed the preparation of a “Vision Document – 2025.” This suggestion itself betrayed a lack of understanding of what a vision document truly signifies. A vision is foundational and forward-looking—Dr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam’s India 2020, written in 1998, stands as a textbook example. What meaning does a “Vision 2025” hold when proposed at the tail end of 2022?
Procedural irregularities extended further. The minutes of the 77th Board meeting held on August 22, 2019 remained unapproved until December 9, 2022, since under the NIPER Act, minutes can only be approved at the subsequent Board meeting. This prolonged illegality speaks volumes about institutional neglect.
The very first agenda of the newly constituted Board dealt entirely with legacy disputes: recovery suits, removals, service litigations, pay anomalies, and sub-judice matters. Predictably, the Board decided to wait for court verdicts, effectively washing its hands of resolution. These were issues I had attempted to resolve during my tenure, but persistent non-cooperation from the Board Chairman and the Joint Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, ensured stalemate—despite the Government of India’s stated intent to reduce litigation.
Ironically, the Board questioned regularisation letters issued during my tenure, conveniently ignoring the fact that the previous Board had regularised over 80 employees against whom CBI FIRs were pending, who had been appointed without interviews, lacked requisite qualifications, or failed experience norms. These facts were well known to Mr. Tingal and other Department of Pharmaceuticals officials, with documented email correspondence to prove it. Ignorance, in this case, was deliberate.
Under Dr. Girish Sahni, the Board at least decided to upload minutes of meetings—an act that finally allowed access to the 78th meeting minutes. What exactly was being hidden earlier, especially when matters were already before courts and in the public domain?
The Board ratified the relieving of Mr. PJP Singh Waraich, suspended for serious misconduct. Yet, shockingly, when he attempted to rejoin service, neither the Board nor the Department of Pharmaceuticals nor the Director contested the case in the Supreme Court. In contrast, senior advocates were promptly hired—at enormous cost—to fight the case of Dr. Neeraj Kumar. Why this selective aggression? Why was a person named in a CBI FIR allowed to continue as Registrar, while lakhs of public money were paid to Mr. Waraich without exhausting legal remedies? When my own services were curtailed, plans were made for an SLP before the Supreme Court, but those plans were conveniently abandoned in favour of prolonged High Court litigation—again at public expense.
Annual agendas routinely sought release of grants. But what exactly were these funds achieving? With mounting court cases, zero tangible drug development outcomes, and massive legal expenditure, one is compelled to ask whether such an Institute deserves continued funding—or even existence. Are public funds meant to fuel legal battles rather than research and academics?
Academic governance fared no better. In the Senate, Dr. Dulal Panda inducted IIT-B (Engineering) despite NIPER Mohali being a pharmaceutical sciences institute with no engineering programmes. Faculty recruitment under Advertisement No. 08/2021 proceeded through Selection Committees even before the Board was constituted. When I was Director, similar actions were harshly questioned by Dr. Katoch and Mr. Tingal—even though a full Board existed then. This time, Mr. Tingal chose silence.
Appointments were approved retrospectively, playing recklessly with candidates’ careers. Several names—including Dr. Uma Ranjan Lal, Dr. Sukhendu Nandi, Dr. Ashutosh Kumar, Dr. Anamika Bose, and Dr. Jaideep Saha—were recommended, with some even granted advance increments.
The most astonishing decision came under agenda item 78.11, where the Board ratified Dr. Dulal Panda’s joining as Director. Simultaneously, it approved the recommendations of the Selection Committees constituted by Dr. Panda himself. How can a Director’s actions be ratified before his own appointment is legally accepted? This procedural absurdity encapsulates the institutional collapse at NIPER Mohali—where legality, logic, and governance have all been turned on their head.
