When I assumed charge as the Director of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, one of my immediate priorities was to understand the institutional history — particularly the context behind certain administrative and policy decisions that seemed to have long-term implications for the Institute’s functioning. My inquiries led me to the minutes of the 69th Meeting of the Board of Governors, held on May 7 and 8, 2017, within the premises of NIPER Mohali. What I discovered in those records was both enlightening and deeply concerning.
To begin with, the very composition of the meeting itself raised serious legal and ethical questions. Three individuals who were not members of the Board of Governors as per the NIPER Act were allowed to participate in the proceedings. These were Mr. Mohanbir Singh Sidhu, Mr. Ajay Sharma, and Mr. B. K. Samantaray, who attended the meeting representing the Secretary (Technical Education), Government of Punjab; the President of the Organization of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI); and the Drug Controller General (India), respectively. Their participation was a direct violation of the statutory provisions governing the composition of the Board. Unfortunately, such procedural breaches were not surprising, given that the meeting was chaired by Dr. V. M. Katoch — a figure who had by then developed a reputation for overlooking institutional norms.
Even more striking was the abysmally poor attendance. Out of the 23 members mandated under the NIPER Act, only seven were present. They included Dr. Katoch himself, Mr. Rajneesh Tingal (Joint Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals), and Dr. U. S. N. Murty, who was then serving as the Officiating Director in the absence of a regular Director. The rest of the seats remained empty — a telling commentary on the Board’s seriousness toward its own governance responsibilities.
At that time, NIPER Mohali held the enviable position of being ranked No. 2 in the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) conducted by the then Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). After I took over, the Institute rose to No. 1 — a recognition of the collective efforts of faculty and staff who valued academic rigor. It is, therefore, extremely distressing to see that as of 2025, the same institution has slipped to a dismal 9th position, reflecting years of administrative neglect and misplaced priorities.
A careful reading of the 69th Board Meeting’s agenda and discussions gives the unmistakable impression that the Board was hardly focused on productive outcomes. The tone of the minutes suggests that the members were content with perfunctory notings rather than decisive action.
For instance, an important agenda item — the formulation of a 3-to-5-year roadmap for the Institute — was merely “noted,” with a casual direction to “place the matter in the next meeting.” There was no sense of urgency or strategic vision.
Another agenda item concerned the Clarification and Implementation of Consultancy Rules. The Consultancy Committee had reportedly prepared a detailed PowerPoint presentation, but due to “paucity of time,” the Board could not take up the matter. Instead, they resolved to schedule it in the next meeting. Considering that the Board met over two full days, one wonders what occupied their attention if they could not spare time for such a crucial policy issue.
In sharp contrast, when the matter of initiating disciplinary proceedings against a professor was placed before them, the Board lost no time in giving its approval. Similarly, an agenda related to recovery from a former faculty member, Dr. Nilanjan Roy, was discussed at length, with directions to seek updates.
The issue of Board nominations was another revealing episode. When the question of filling the vacancies created by the exit of Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and the nomination of Directors from PGI/AIIMS came up, Joint Secretary Mr. Rajneesh Tingal informed the Board that the matter had already been taken up with the concerned ministries. Yet, despite this assurance, the nominations were never finalized for the entire tenure of that Board.
Equally telling was the Board’s treatment of the agenda regarding the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) and the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) accreditation. Instead of deliberating on the need for academic and laboratory accreditation — a fundamental benchmark for any premier scientific institute — the Board simply “noted” the contents and deferred discussion. One can only assume that accreditation and quality assurance were considered too intellectually demanding for that particular Board.
Another disturbing revelation pertained to a fire incident on campus. The Board was informed that no Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) existed detailing responsibilities in case of such emergencies, nor were there any documented safety plans indicating the location of hazardous materials or emergency equipment. That an institute with over two decades of operation, and with established departments in Chemical and Biological Sciences, could function without basic safety SOPs is shocking. Ironically, this institutional negligence persisted under the very leadership of Dr. Katoch, who had earlier served as the Director General of ICMR.
The discussion around Dr. Nilanjan Roy exposed a deeper rot. Dr. Roy, a former faculty member, had reportedly raised his voice against the unethical practices of Dr. K. K. Bhutani (the then Officiating Director), Registrar Mr. P. J. P. Singh Waraich, and Dr. Katoch himself. Instead of addressing his concerns, the Board chose to focus on a trivial financial matter involving Rs. 40.23 lakh in advances to vendors supplying equipment and software. Of this, Rs. 11.41 lakh pertained to a customized scientific software procured by Dr. Roy. The Board’s obsession was with whether Dr. Roy had handed over the software keys to anyone and who was using it currently — even though it was clarified that no one had used or was willing to use it. The matter was handed over to a committee, and a show-cause notice was issued to Dr. Roy.
Contrast this vindictive scrutiny with the Board’s leniency toward its own favorites. The Officiating Director proposed the extension of the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) scale to senior professors, arguing that the financial burden would be negligible — only about Rs. 1,500 per month — but the move would serve as motivational recognition. However, the Board ruled that dual benefits of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and HAG could not be granted simultaneously, effectively stalling the proposal.
The Board also discussed the Emeritus Fellowship Scheme but dismissed the proposed guidelines as arbitrary, claiming they did not reflect the spirit of the Board’s directions.
When the Action Taken Report on the Ministry’s High-Level Committee recommendations for regularizing NIPER employees came up, the Officiating Director reminded the Board that as per Clause 3.1.2(b), the Board was the appointing authority for professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and equivalent posts, while the Director was the appointing authority for all other categories. The Ministry had instructed that the recommendations be placed before the Board for consideration. The Officiating Director then sought permission for a presentation by a three-member committee comprising Prof. Saranjit Singh, Prof. A. K. Chakraborti, and Prof. U. C. Banerjee, along with Dean Prof. P. V. Bhartam, on 11 pending regularization cases. The Board consented.
From a broader reading of the minutes, one can infer widespread administrative misuse of authority and selective favoritism. The case of Dr. K. Srinivasan stands out. The Board noted that Dr. Srinivasan, appointed as Scientist Grade-II, lacked the prescribed six years of experience at the time of appointment, having only 5.5 years. However, it was also acknowledged that his M.V.Sc. degree (obtained in 1999) was, as per ICMR norms, equivalent to three years of experience. On that basis, and considering his service record, the Board approved his regularization effective December 17, 2004 — the day he joined as Scientist Grade-I. This clearly demonstrated how administrative ignorance, especially among non-scientific members, could have jeopardized the career of a deserving scientist simply because they lacked understanding of academic equivalences and research norms.
Ironically, the same Board had no hesitation in regularizing employees with dubious records — individuals with poor academic performance, those named in CBI FIRs, candidates who never appeared for interviews, or others with completely irrelevant backgrounds. Meanwhile, sincere professionals like Dr. Srinivasan were subjected to unnecessary scrutiny.
Adding to the irony, the Board even took up a matter involving Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain, a former Board member against whom certain allegations were made. It later emerged that Mr. Jain had earlier questioned the nexus between Dr. Bhutani, Mr. Waraich, and Dr. Katoch — the very people running the administrative show.
Equally neglected was a table agenda item on anomalies in the pay scale of NIPER Scientists (Grade-II) under the Sixth Central Pay Commission. The Board failed to discuss it, and years later, the issue continues to linger in the courts — as I personally saw from documents shared with me by a female employee.
Even the basic sanctity of the meeting process was compromised. On the second day of deliberations, two individuals — Dr. P. C. Rai (a Board member) and Mr. Mohanbir Singh Sidhu (a representative) — were absent during presentations. That meant only six out of 23 members attended the meeting in full. Worse, the presence of “representatives” attending in place of regular members, in clear violation of the NIPER Act, further eroded the legality of the proceedings.
When one connects all these dots, a disturbing picture emerges — of a Board that functioned more as a club of convenience than as a statutory body safeguarding institutional integrity. It was a period when procedural violations, favoritism, and selective victimization were normalized, while issues of academic quality, safety, and governance were conveniently postponed “to the next meeting.”
