The 81st meeting of the Board of Governors, held on June 20, 2023, was less a forum of governance and more a case study in administrative drift. With the re-entry of a former Registrar—suspended during my tenure—as Secretary to the Board, confusion once again became the institutional norm. The minutes themselves read like a chronicle of contradiction.
Under Agenda Item 81.2, the Board advised the Institute to “be very cautious” while registering the Centre for Pharmaceutical Innovation and Entrepreneurship as a Section 8 company, urging airtight rules, strict compliance, and even the involvement of external experts.
This sudden caution would be understandable—if not for the fact that the very same Board, in its 78th meeting on December 9, 2022, had unanimously approved the registration of the Centre as a company. It had gone further, authorizing the Director to constitute the Governing Board Management Committee and approving the Scientific Entrepreneurship Scheme for faculty, staff, students, and alumni.
So, what changed in the span of one and a half years? Not the proposal, not the law, not the institutional mandate—only the advice flowing to the Board. This flip-flop is not prudence; it is paralysis. And it reflects an authority trapped in indecision, steered by poor counsel rather than institutional clarity.
Another long-pending item was the implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system—a proposal that has lingered for years without resolution. As a former Director, I remain unconvinced that an institute of this scale can justify an ERP package running into crores of rupees.
If one were to dig deeper—who demanded the ERP, who bid for the tender, what specifications were sought, how much was initially quoted, and how costs later escalated—one suspects that more than software inefficiencies might come to light. Transparency here is not optional; it is overdue.
Agenda Item 78.14 (79.7) on strengthening the Grievance Redressal Mechanism exposed perhaps the most glaring inconsistency. The minutes record Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, Joint Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, advising the Institute to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee, while cautioning against reopening old or sub judice matters.
This would sound reasonable if it did not directly contradict his own actions during my tenure. At that time, he ensured that the Rapid Grievance Redressal Mechanism was shut down entirely and was instrumental in disbanding the very committee now being recommended for revival.
So which stance was correct? If dismantling the committee was justified then, why the call for reconstitution now? If revival is necessary today, was its disbandment a grave mistake? Governance cannot function on shifting principles tailored to convenience.
Agenda Item 79.9 addressed age relaxation for departmental candidates in direct recruitment at NIPER, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). The Board unanimously resolved to extend up to five years of age relaxation, aligning with the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum dated March 27, 2012.
This relaxation was granted despite the absence of such a provision in the existing Recruitment Rules, relying instead on draft service rules framed for all NIPERs, which impose no age restriction for departmental candidates.
Yet, when it comes to the post of Registrar, those same draft service rules are conveniently ignored. Across other NIPERs, Registrars are appointed on a five-year tenure basis. NIPER Mohali stands alone in having a permanently appointed Registrar.
Rules, it seems, are flexible—applied where convenient, discarded where inconvenient. This selective governance undermines both fairness and credibility.
The minutes of the 81st meeting record a consolidated proposal submitted in June 2023 for the revival of faculty posts: 10 Professors, 11 Associate Professors, and 7 Assistant Professors.
This proposal is not new. I had sought the revival of these very posts back in 2018–19. Five years later, the same request is still “under consideration.”
How can institutions designated as “of national importance” hope to compete globally when even basic staffing decisions move at a glacial pace?
Mr. Tingal is quoted as saying that the Ministry is “sensitive” to the Institute’s requirements and expressed hope for revival. Sensitivity without action, however, is merely rhetoric. If after half a decade, the situation remains unchanged, one must ask what exactly sensitivity has achieved.
Perhaps the most surreal entry in the minutes is the reported income of ₹4,400 from the sale of the in-house magazine, CRIPS.
Is this a serious figure—or a satire on institutional ambition? For an Institute of National Importance, an annual return that barely covers the cost of printing is not a revenue stream; it is an embarrassment.
Agenda Item 81.5 notes a staggering deficit of ₹67.30 crore in the Pension Fund. After more than three decades of existence, the Institute has yet to achieve financial self-sustainability.
In the same meeting, Mr. Tingal articulated a vision of NIPERs achieving self-sustainability and financial resilience “in the longer run.”
But visions without timelines, roadmaps, or accountability are little more than aspirational slogans. When deficits grow and decisions stall, the longer run begins to look like an indefinite postponement.
Taken together, these minutes reveal not isolated lapses but a pattern: approvals reversed, committees dismantled and revived, rules applied selectively, and urgent proposals left to gather dust for years.
Institutions of national importance deserve governance rooted in clarity, consistency, and competence—not a revolving door of decisions that change with the advisor of the moment.
Until accountability replaces ambiguity, these pillars of indecision, inefficiency, and incompetence will continue to hold up a system that is slowly but steadily eroding its own foundations.
