The 71st meeting of the Board of Governors (BoG) of NIPER Mohali, held on September 16 and 17, was expected to reinforce the standards of governance for an institute declared of national importance. Instead, it exposed serious procedural lapses, a casual disregard for statutory norms, and a disturbing pattern of selective accountability that ultimately contributed to the institution’s decline.
To begin with, the meeting violated the basic requirement of quorum. Out of 23 members, only seven attended the meeting — far short of the one-third attendance mandated by NIPER regulations. Even this limited participation was inconsistent, with member P. C. Rai absent on the first day. More troubling was the blatant violation of the NIPER Act: three non-members — Mohanbir Singh Sidhu, Ajay Sharma, and S. K. Samantaray — were permitted to participate as “representatives.” Though I did not object at the time, as this was only my second meeting since taking charge as Director, the procedural breach was unmistakable.
The Board’s composition itself reflected outdated records. Dr. Anil K. Gupta of IIM Ahmedabad attended the meeting for the first time simply because his name had never been removed from the BoG list. Ironically, this was also the first time Board members made a round of the institute’s laboratories and departments.
The minutes noted that Chairman Dr. V. M. Katoch flagged student complaints regarding delayed fellowships and staff concerns about pending NOCs and Utilization Certificates. He described such matters as “petty” but potentially disruptive if not resolved promptly, and specified that the Board’s role was limited to support and oversee governance.
Yet, Dr. Katoch fully knew that these issues fell directly under the responsibility of Registrar PJP Singh Waraich, for whom he appeared to have a soft corner. The registrar’s explanation — that meeting employee and student expectations was “cumbersome” — was readily accepted, despite the institute having only about 150 employees. The Board’s solution was to propose a Citizen’s-Charter-like Standard Operating System and a weekly grievance redressal mechanism, raising the question of how such basic systems were absent in a 20-year-old institution.
The Board was informed by Joint Secretary Rajneesh Tingal that resignations, replacements, and nominations were under process. Yet during my entire tenure, no action ever followed.
Another agenda item revealed severe disparities in teaching loads. My review showed that some departments had faculty taking barely one or two classes per week, while certain courses had no classroom teaching for an entire semester. This was a shocking academic lapse for a premier institute.
To promote transparency, I proposed that the minutes of all BoG meetings be uploaded on the institute’s website. The Board immediately rejected the suggestion and insisted on maintaining the status quo. This raised an obvious question: What exactly was the Board trying to hide? The lack of quorum? The presence of non-members? Questionable decisions? Or decisions that would not stand public scrutiny?
Many agenda items revealed either indecision or selective attention:
- Revised Consultancy Rules (70.2.1): Deferred again without resolution.
- Disciplinary action (70.2.2): Proceeding initiated against a professor.
- Department presentations (70.2.3): Not held due to “time constraints.”
- Civil Suit against Dr. Nilanjan Roy (70.2.4): Noted.
- Rapid Grievance Redressal Committee: Procedures acknowledged, but confusion persisted in sub-judice cases. Later, Dr. Katoch reversed his earlier stance and insisted that all matters must be routed only through him — contradicting his earlier statement on the Board’s limited role.
- Merger proposal of two departments (70.2.6): Presentation not held.
- Vacancies created by the exit of Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and the Directors of PGIMER/AIIMS remained unfilled.
- Revenue Generation Task Force (70.2.9): No recommendations.
A far more serious matter emerged with the CPWD nominee requirement (70.2.12). The NIPER Act mandates that a CPWD officer of at least Superintending Engineer rank be ex officio on the Laboratory Services, Buildings and Works Committee. For years, NIPER Mohali violated this provision. Crores of rupees worth of construction had been carried out through external agencies subcontracting to private parties, in the absence of a CPWD representative. Despite full knowledge of this violation, the Board did not attempt to correct past wrongs, merely reiterating that the rank requirement must be maintained.
The Board also failed to discuss the 3–5-year roadmap (70.2.13 & 14) for the institute. Meanwhile, despite claiming that financial matters required Ministry approval (70.2.17), the Board had previously taken financial decisions now under litigation. Long-pending issues such as anomalies in the pay scale of Scientist Grade II remained unresolved.
The Board acknowledged the non-utilization of a ₹9.7-crore grant for 2016–17 — including funds allocated for WiFi and CCTV infrastructure, none of which was implemented.
The pay scale anomaly of the Secretary to the Director, the only staff member assisting the Director daily, was ignored and clubbed with other NIPERs.
The Board refused to ratify minutes of the Academic Planning and Development Committee (APDC), claiming that statutory committees merely needed to “inform” them — a telling sign of their indifference to academic matters.
A revealing moment came with Table Agenda 71.T1, where the Chairman pushed through the allotment of a Type-VI residence to the Registrar, overruling all objections. It was then obvious why the Board resisted uploading its minutes: such decisions would not survive public scrutiny.
Contradictions, Rankings, and Lost Potential
Another table agenda item (71.T2) concerned the voluntary retirement of Dr. U. C. Banerjee, which the Board approved, yet oddly recommended asking him about his plans if joining another institution.
Despite these governance failures, the Board expressed satisfaction with academics and research. Under my tenure, NIPER Mohali ranked No. 1 in Pharmacy under NIRF.
Key achievements included patents nearing commercialization, initiation of a Big Animal Facility, international dual-degree discussions, a 40:60 gender ratio, 100% placement, efforts to secure MBA fellowships, and industry appreciation.
But sustained progress required sincere institutional backing. Instead, shielding wrongdoers, ignoring norms, and running meetings with inadequate quorum eroded the institute’s credibility. The consequences are evident today: in the 2025 NIRF rankings, NIPER Mohali has slipped to ninth place.
A premier national institute that could have become a global model was held back by its own governance mechanisms — an institutional tragedy that was both foreseeable and avoidable.
