I joined NIPER Mohali on May 12, 2017, and soon after attended my first Board of Governors (BoG) meeting — the 70th — held on June 29, 2017, in New Delhi. The meeting was chaired by Dr. V. M. Katoch and attended by Prof. M. R. Doreswamy, Ms. Meenakshi Gupta (Additional Secretary & Financial Advisor, Department of Pharmaceuticals), Dr. G. N. Singh (DCGI), Prof. Ashwani Kumar Nangia, Dr. R. S. Verma, Dr. Vijaya Laxmi Deshmane and Prof. M. D. Karvekar. Two non-member industry representatives — Shri Ashok Kumar Madan (IDMA) and Dr. Ajay Sharma (OPPI) — were also present. Meanwhile, Prof. Anil K. Gupta of IIM Ahmedabad, as usual, conveyed his absence, despite a BoG decision — in the 68th meeting held on March 15, 2017 — to replace any member who missed three consecutive meetings. But in his case, no action was taken due to his longstanding association with the Chairman. Industry leaders, Mr. Sudhir Mehta of Torrent Pharma and Shri Satish Reddy of Dr. Reddy’s Labs, had not attended even a single meeting since the Board’s constitution — a telling statement on the seriousness toward industry–academia collaboration.
At this meeting, I presented the NIPER Manifesto (2017–2022) — a roadmap for my tenure — which received appreciation from the Board. Dr. G. N. Singh expressed that the nation expects NIPERs to contribute significantly to emerging areas such as medical device regulations and drug pricing policy. Yet, despite the formal appreciation, it was immediately clear to me that the atmosphere at the Institute was far from healthy; something fundamentally wrong was simmering beneath the surface.
Prof. M. R. Doreswamy stated bluntly that the BoG agenda was overloaded with routine administrative matters when the focus must be on accelerating teaching and research. He revealed receiving disturbing representations from faculty and students alike, warning that if faculty resort to using students to fulfil their personal ambitions, the environment becomes toxic and the academic culture collapses. He also cited negative media coverage damaging NIPER’s reputation and expressed disappointment that the Chairman had not addressed these issues proactively. Throughout the Chairman’s tenure, one could not find a single positive initiative toward transformative leadership.
Dr. Katoch assured that the next BoG meeting would be held in September 2017 at NIPER Mohali, with one full day dedicated to scientific review and faculty interactions. However, almost all meetings continued to be hosted at Shastri Bhawan in Delhi, ensuring students, faculty, and researchers had little to no access to Board members — an approach completely contradictory to his own claims of guidance and reform.
Industry representative Dr. Ajay Sharma mentioned that pharma companies were keen to collaborate but required clarity on expertise and infrastructure available at NIPER. Ironically, even after obtaining full clarity later, not a single credible proposal reached us — raising questions about how genuine those assurances really were.
If the minutes of these BoG meetings were publicly shared on NIPER’s website — as they should be — the casual, opaque and protectionist approach of the Board under Dr. Katoch’s chairmanship would be exposed to the public. But the Chairman ensured they remained out of public view.
Presentations by Prof. A. K. Chakraborti and Prof. U. C. Banerjee on Revised Consultancy Rules yielded nothing, since statutes were never amended to implement them. Key agenda items were treated with dismissal or passed off — such as Agenda 69.2.3 involving disciplinary action against a professor, or Agenda 69.2.5 about recovering ₹6,51,880 from Dr. Nilanjay Roy, prompting Prof. Verma to question whether legal costs had already exceeded that amount. Agenda 68.2.6 proposing a merger of Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Technology departments was pushed to another committee instead of being discussed. The Academic Standard Committee report (Agenda 68.2.8) was also deferred to the Ministry without deliberation.
Amid these evasions, attempts were made to question my joining process and deputation, perhaps to exert early pressure. I clarified that my superannuation was due in June 2020 under Kakatiya University rules, which limited deputation duration. I even expressed willingness to opt for VRS, after which Ms. Meenakshi Gupta rightly stated it was only a routine matter. Ironically, later, Dr. Dulal Panda was allowed to serve while retaining his lien at IIT Bombay — and no one questioned it. Similarly, the Registrar PJP Singh Waraich continued in a permanent position — something unheard of in any IIT or NIPER, where Registrar posts are strictly tenure-based.
Meanwhile, a few senior professors relentlessly pushed for Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) scale upgrades. The Board correctly stated that HAG and CAS are separate matters governed by statutes — yet the pressure continued throughout my tenure, overshadowing academic priorities.
The Board was informed that five employees had filed a writ petition (CWP-9663-2017) against regularization decisions. But the same Board chose to ignore the real irregularities — those named in a CBI FIR were regularized without scrutiny; employees without essential qualifications or experience were regularized; some were recruited in absentia; and in certain instances, two individuals were appointed against a single sanctioned post.
Despite these blatant violations, the Board singled out two minor staff — Shri K. S. Saini (Steno Grade B) and Shri Baldev Raj Bains (DEO) — and asked them to justify their appointments before the full Board. Mr. Saini presented his consistent “Very Good” and “Outstanding” ACRs and explained how he was terminated in 2003 without reason, forcing him into a long legal battle still sub judice in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Watching a long-serving, competent employee forced to justify his existence — while those with questionable appointments were shielded — exposed the deep hypocrisy and double standards guiding governance at the Institute.
Overall, this first BoG meeting revealed a system resistant to transparency, complacent in mediocrity, selective in enforcement, and protective of entrenched interests — while students, research and institutional integrity remained neglected. It became clear to me that delivering a world-class academic environment at NIPER would require more than vision — it would demand structural clean-up, courage to confront vested interests, and steadfast commitment to ethical governance. The journey ahead was never going to be easy — but for the future of NIPER and its students, it was necessary.
