The 82nd meeting of the Board of Governors of NIPER Mohali, held on October 6, 2023, offered a telling snapshot of the Institute’s current state of governance. Of the full Board, only seven members were present, including the Chairman and Mr. Mohanbir Singh Sidhu, a representative of the Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Punjab. The Secretary himself was absent—continuing a pattern of non-attendance at meetings of an Institute of National Importance, for which the Government of Punjab had allocated land and institutional support.
Notably absent were:
- Dr. T. Rajamannar
- Dr. Meenakshi Sharma
- Dr. Rajesh Jain
The meeting also marked the exit of Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, Joint Secretary in the Department of Pharmaceuticals, who had superannuated. During his tenure, the Institute frequently found itself in the public domain for reasons that raised questions about administrative direction and institutional oversight.
The DCGI nominee also superannuated. Although the Deputy DCGI, CDSCO, was nominated to attend on behalf of the DCGI, he did not attend the meeting.
Under Agenda Item 81.13, the Director informed the Board that five faculty positions had finally been advertised, stating that filling these posts would help improve the faculty–student ratio and, by extension, the Institute’s performance in national evaluations such as the NIRF rankings.
NIPER Mohali has scored poorly on several key NIRF parameters, including:
- Teacher–student ratio
- Faculty designation distribution
- Extramural funding
- Consultancy output
What is striking is not the recognition of the problem, but the delay. I raised concerns about faculty recruitment as early as 2018. At the time, Dr. V. M. Katoch and Mr. Rajneesh Tingal did not permit the recruitment process to move forward. Ironically, the Institute was ranked No. 1 in the NIRF at that stage. I warned then that stagnation in recruitment would inevitably translate into a decline in performance and rankings. The warning went unheeded. The results are now visible.
In the official minutes, the Secretary—who also serves as the Registrar—used the term “physically handicapped students,” despite formal guidance from the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities recommending the use of the term “Divyangjan.” While “Divyangjan” was placed in brackets, the inconsistency reflected a broader lack of procedural alignment with established governmental norms.
Agenda Item 81.14 dealt with institutional mechanisms for product-oriented research. The Director proposed the formation of three committees:
- Pharmaceutical Sciences (Formulation & Development, Analysis, NDDS)
- Chemical Sciences (APIs, Nutraceuticals, Natural Products, NCEs, Pharmaceutics)
- Biological Sciences (Pharmacology, Biopharmaceuticals, Biotechnology)
That such committees are being constituted nearly three decades after the Institute’s establishment raises a fundamental question: why is an institution of this stature still in the process of designing basic frameworks for translational and product-driven outcomes?
The Board remained undecided on allocating two floors of the Engineering Building for a proposed Centre for Pharmaceutical Innovation and Entrepreneurship, deferring the matter to a future meeting.
Similarly, the Citizens’ Charter, a core accountability document, remained unfinished. The Board expressed concern, but once again postponed the agenda item to the next meeting.
Centres of Excellence or Centres of Excess?
Under Agenda Item 82.3, the Board considered establishing a Centre of Excellence for Anti-Bacterial and Anti-Viral Drug Discovery and Development, with a projected budget of ₹100 crore over five years.
The proposal came as a surprise in light of the fact that several existing centres at NIPER Mohali remain underutilized. The now-defunct National Bioavailability Centre, which never fulfilled its intended purpose, stands as a cautionary example. The concern is not about ambition—but about sustainability, utilization, and accountability.
During my tenure as Director, the Board—under the Chairmanship of Dr. V. M. Katoch—had deliberated on the processes followed in the appointment of certain faculty members. Those very appointments, which had earlier raised procedural questions, reappeared under Agenda Item 82.4, where promotions to higher grades were approved.
Under Agenda Item 82.5, the Board discussed allowing faculty, staff, and students to form startups or legal entities and incubate them within the Institute. Instead of a policy decision, the Board advised seeking guidance from other NIPERs to see if similar frameworks existed.
This is particularly telling. NIPER Mohali was the first NIPER established in the country. Should it not be setting benchmarks for newer institutions, rather than waiting for them to lead?
In a final contrast, the Board unanimously approved the condonation of delay in an LTC reimbursement claim submitted by the Registrar—who also serves as the Secretary to the Board.
Here, the decision was prompt and uncontested.
Yet, matters related to institutional growth, faculty recruitment, innovation frameworks, student entrepreneurship, and long-term academic strategy were repeatedly deferred, postponed, or referred forward.
What emerges from the 82nd Board meeting is not a single lapse, but a pattern:
Individual administrative matters move swiftly. Structural, academic, and institutional reforms move slowly—if at all.
For an Institute of National Importance, the question is no longer whether NIPER Mohali has ambition. The question is whether its governance mechanisms are aligned to convert ambition into accountable, timely, and measurable institutional progress.
