The 86th meeting of the Board of Governors of the Institute was held on December 9, 2024. The attendance pattern itself revealed a troubling picture of disengagement and institutional indifference.
The meeting was attended by Dr. Sushant Sharma, Deputy Drugs Controller (India), CDSCO, Baddi Sub-Zonal Office, representing the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The DCGI himself once again chose not to attend the meeting. In fact, only one Board member from outside the Institute attended the meeting in person. The remaining three members physically present were all from NIPER Mohali itself, raising questions about the diversity and independence of participation expected from a governing board.
Dr. Harinder Pal Singh attended the meeting as a representative of the Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Punjab. Notably, the Secretary himself has not attended any meeting of the Board so far. Five other members joined the meeting virtually.
According to the minutes, Prof. Dulal Panda presided over the meeting as Officiating Chairperson. He had assumed this role following the sudden demise of Dr. Girish Sahni, the former Chairman of the Board of Governors, on August 19, 2024. However, what is striking is that even several months after Dr. Sahni’s passing, the Department of Pharmaceuticals failed to appoint a new Chairman of the Board. More importantly, the Department did not even initiate the process of seeking approval from the Visitor of the Institute for appointing a new Chairman. Such prolonged administrative inertia at the highest level reflects poorly on the governance mechanism of the Institute.
A close reading of the minutes also reveals another disturbing trend. Not a single Board member appears to have made any substantive observation or raised a question on any agenda item. The discussions, if any, are entirely absent from the recorded proceedings.
Agenda Item No. 84.2.7 related to the Personal Promotion Scheme (PPS) and Promotion Policy of the Institute. The Board was informed that the policy was still under examination from administrative and financial perspectives. The Board merely directed the Institute to attempt finalising the new promotion policy by March 31, 2025.
This itself exposes a long-standing administrative failure. For years, the Institute has been unable to formulate a comprehensive Personal Promotion Policy. The issue has repeatedly appeared in successive Board meetings, yet without any meaningful progress. The repeated appearance of the same agenda item without resolution gives the impression that Board meetings are being conducted merely as a procedural formality rather than as a forum for decisive governance.
In fact, most of the Board’s role appears limited to noting, endorsing, approving, or ratifying the minutes of other committees.
For instance:
- Under Agenda Item 86.3, the Board simply approved and ratified the minutes of the Finance Committee.
- Under Agenda Item 86.4, the Board endorsed and adopted the Annual Accounts of the Institute for 2023-24.
- Under Agenda Item 86.6, the Board was informed about faculty recruitment conducted between October 18, 2024 and December 5, 2024.
Surprisingly, no Board member raised even a basic query regarding the absence of any wait-listed candidates in the recruitment process. In most academic recruitments, a wait-list is standard practice to ensure continuity if selected candidates decline the offer. Yet, the records show no such provision.
Even more puzzling is the fact that against six advertised faculty positions, none was found suitable. Despite this extraordinary outcome, no member of the Board appears to have questioned the process or sought clarification.
Under Agenda Item 86.7, the Board simply resolved to adopt and approve the bilingual Annual Statement of Accounts placed before it.
Another revealing aspect of the meeting relates to the Institute’s request to issue appointment letters to selected candidates without waiting for the Board members’ comments on the draft minutes of the meeting. The justification offered was that obtaining comments from members might take more than two weeks.
In effect, this meant that the Institute intended to proceed with appointments regardless of whether any Board member raised objections or sought clarifications later. Implicitly, it appeared to be assumed that no member would question the recorded minutes.
The minutes further record that the Board inquired about the feasibility of reducing the time allowed for members to submit comments on draft minutes. The Secretary of the Board — who is also the Registrar of the Institute — informed the members that the Institute’s statutes were silent on this matter. He further stated that a previous Board had decided to allow two weeks for comments on draft minutes.
Based on this explanation, the Board resolved that draft minutes would henceforth be circulated electronically and comments should be submitted within seven working days.
However, this interpretation is misleading.
Clause 3.1.3(k) of the NIPER Statutes clearly states:
“The minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Board shall be drawn up by the Registrar and circulated to all members of the Board present. The minutes along with amendments, if any, suggested shall be placed for confirmation at the next meeting of the Board.”
This provision leaves no ambiguity. Board members retain the right to suggest amendments until the minutes are formally confirmed in the subsequent meeting of the Board.
In practice, minutes are approved only in the next Board meeting, and members can raise questions or objections at that stage before confirmation. However, during my tenure as Director, this statutory principle was repeatedly ignored.
Dr. V. M. Katoch and Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, who was then Joint Secretary, routinely treated minutes as approved immediately after the meeting and proceeded to act upon them without waiting for formal confirmation by the Board.
I repeatedly raised objections to this procedural violation, but my concerns were ignored. The issue resurfaced prominently at the time of my suspension, when the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court took note of the matter and granted relief.
The episode illustrates a larger problem: when statutory procedures are treated casually, governance structures risk becoming mere formalities rather than instruments of accountability.
