The 85th meeting of the Board of Governors (BoG), held on October 18, 2024, at the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali, has raised more questions than it answered. What should have been a routine administrative exercise now appears symptomatic of a deeper malaise—indifference, reactive governance, procedural ambiguity, and potential conflicts of interest.
Representation Without Continuity
In the 84th meeting, the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, was represented by Mr. Ranga Chandrasekhar, Deputy Drugs Controller. In the 85th meeting, representation shifted to Dr. Sushant Sharma, another Deputy Drugs Controller.
If a different officer represents the DCGI at each meeting, where is institutional memory? Where is continuity? Genuine representation demands consistency, not rotational attendance that dilutes accountability.
Chairmanship: Absence or Vacancy?
Following the sudden demise of Dr. Girish Sahni on August 19, 2024, Prof. Dulal Panda functioned as Chairperson (Officiating). The Nodal Ministry informed the Institute that the process for nominating a new Chairperson—requiring approval from the Visitor, the Hon’ble President of India—had been initiated and would take time.
Meanwhile, the Ministry advised that under Section 3.1.3(g) of the NIPER Statutes, 2003, the Director could convene meetings and preside in the absence of the Chairman.
But this raises a critical question: was the Chairman “absent,” or was the post vacant? The Statutes provide for absence—not vacancy due to death. The distinction is not semantic; it is structural. A vacancy requires formal appointment. Interpreting absence to include vacancy stretches the spirit of the Statutes and sets a worrying precedent.
₹100 Crore, But Where Is the Centre?
The Department of Pharmaceuticals approved ₹100 crore for establishing a Centre of Excellence for Anti-Bacterial and Anti-Viral Drug Discovery and Development at the Institute. Nearly 18 months later, there is little public information on the Institute’s website regarding tangible progress, infrastructure, research output, or timelines.
In an era when antimicrobial resistance is a global threat, silence is not a strategy. If ₹100 crore has been sanctioned, stakeholders deserve transparency.
Startup Policy: Reactive Governance
Agenda Item 84.2.2 allowed faculty, staff, and students to form startups and incubate them at the Institute’s incubation centre. While encouraging entrepreneurship is commendable, the Board failed to deliberate on a critical issue: what happens if the founder leaves the Institute?
The minutes simply record that “appropriate amendments” may be made later with BoG approval if such a situation arises. This is governance by reaction. Policy must anticipate risk—not wait for crisis to draft rules.
APAR Format: Statutes Sidestepped?
The Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) format for faculty was modified and approved by the Board. However, the format itself was not annexed to the minutes.
More troubling is the apparent bypassing of statutory safeguards. Clause 5 of the NIPER Statutes governs career advancement from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and onward. It mandates a strict selection process grounded in:
- Annual appraisal reports
- Student evaluations
- Publications, patents, and reports
- Institutional contributions
- Recognition from external agencies
Without amending the Statutes, altering the APAR framework that directly influences promotions could amount to a statutory violation. Faculty careers depend on this document. Procedural shortcuts here erode institutional trust.
Sealed Envelopes and Selection Concerns
The Board opened sealed envelopes containing selection committee recommendations. Notably:
- No waitlisted candidates were recorded for any post.
- For Professorships in Pharmaceutics and Pharmacology & Toxicology, no candidate was found suitable.
- For Assistant Professor in Pharmaceutics—one of the most sought-after specializations—not a single candidate appeared.
The Selection Committee structure itself warrants scrutiny. The Director is an ex officio member. Of the five members, at least two external experts are nominated by the Director. With a quorum of just 50% plus the Chair, the Director’s influence becomes dominant. The same Director then presided over the Board as Chairperson (Officiating) when the envelopes were opened.
Even if procedurally defensible, this concentration of influence raises the optics of conflict of interest.
The matter has now reached the judiciary. Dr. Satyendra Kumar Rajput has filed a writ petition (CWP-20242-2025) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging violations in the recruitment process. The case is listed for hearing on July 13, 2026.
The Larger Question
Institutions like NIPER Mohali are meant to be national centres of excellence, not administrative battlegrounds. When representation lacks continuity, statutes are interpreted elastically, ₹100 crore projects go quiet, policies remain reactive, and recruitment processes invite legal challenge, governance itself becomes the issue.
The real test is not whether procedures can be defended, but whether they inspire confidence.
And at the moment, confidence appears to be in short supply.
