The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, stands accused of widespread irregularities in its employee regularisation process. This scandal, stemming from policy changes implemented in 2014, exposes serious lapses in governance, transparency, and accountability. Here, we delve into the core issues, key evidence, and implications of this controversy.
NIPER Mohali initially operated under a contract-based employment system, where employees were hired for fixed terms, typically five years. Contract renewals depended heavily on maintaining favorable relationships with superiors. However, on July 3, 2014, through a notification under the NIPER Act, 1998, the institute’s statutes were amended to adopt a policy of regular appointments.
To oversee this transition, a high-level committee was constituted with specific criteria for regularisation:
- Fair Recruitment Practices: Verification of whether the original appointment was made through transparent and standard procedures.
- Satisfactory Service Records: Assessment of the employee’s performance history.
- Eligibility: Confirmation of qualifications and experience as per the requirements of the respective posts.
The Registrar, as custodian of records under the NIPER Act, was expected to provide accurate details for this process. However, serious allegations suggest systemic manipulation of records and processes.
The Role of Key Officials
Despite the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) naming senior officials such as the Registrar and Director in its FIR, the Department of Pharmaceuticals relied on data provided by the NIPER administration. During Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally’s tenure as Director, files and emails retrieved from the suspended Registrar’s office revealed extensive anomalies, pointing to a broader conspiracy.
Dr. Akkinepally’s discoveries included:
- Relaxation of hiring criteria.
- Appointments made without interviews or board approvals.
- Selection of unqualified or underqualified candidates.
Instead of addressing these irregularities, whistleblowers like Dr. Akkinepally and Capt. Kshitij Sharma faced removal and legal challenges, while compliant officials assumed key positions.
Key Allegations and Irregularities
- Hiring in Absentia:
Several employees were appointed without being present for interviews:
- Prof. Inder Pal Singh: Selected without an interview.
- Prof. Rahul Jain: Application submitted post-deadline; selected in absentia.
- Prof. Ipsita Roy: Appointed without an interview; currently Head of Department and Board Member.
- Prof. K.P.R. Kartha: Selected while employed at a UK university.
- Lack of Required Experience or Qualifications:
Numerous hires failed to meet advertised criteria:
- Dr. S.S. Sharma: Possessed only one year of experience against a requirement of three years.
- Dr. Kulbhushan Tikoo: No experience certificate provided; currently Dean.
- Mr. Vikas Grover: Selected for a role requiring an M.Sc./M.Pharm. degree but held only a B.Sc.
- Applications Submitted After Deadlines:
- Dr. Abhay T. Sangamwar: Application received a month after the closing date.
- Over-Age Candidates:
- Dr. S.M. Tripathi: Exceeded the age limit by six years at the time of application.
- Appointments Exceeding Advertised Vacancies:
- Mr. Amit Thapar and Mr. Anurag Sharma: Both appointed to a single advertised vacancy.
- Irregular Board Approvals:
- Dr. Shankar Guchhait: Appointed on an ad hoc basis without board approval; ad hoc service counted as regular service.
Whistleblowers Silenced
Capt. Kshitij Sharma, a key whistleblower, retrieved emails revealing direct correspondence between institute officials and senior bureaucrats, including Mr. Jitendra Trivedi and Mr. Rajneesh Tingal of the Department of Pharmaceuticals. Instead of addressing the allegations, Dr. Akkinepally was removed, and Capt. Sharma faced retaliation, including legal battles in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Legal and Administrative Responses
Despite substantial evidence, courts have hesitated to act decisively, citing technicalities such as whether specific roles constitute “public office.”
Notable cases include:
- CWP-7113 of 2022
- CWP-28606 of 2023
In both instances, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that certain NIPER appointments did not qualify for judicial review under writ jurisdiction.
The NIPER Mohali regularisation scandal underscores the need for systemic reforms in governance and oversight. With nearly 100% government funding and students receiving scholarships, the institute owes transparency and accountability to taxpayers and stakeholders.
Despite mounting evidence of irregularities, including CBI findings and whistleblower reports, senior officials continue to evade scrutiny. The reluctance of governing bodies and courts to intervene further deepens public distrust.
Immediate actions must include:
- A thorough, independent investigation into the hiring practices.
- Accountability measures for implicated officials.
- Policy reforms to prevent future misconduct.
This scandal is not just a failure of institutional governance but a betrayal of public trust. The onus lies on the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers and the Department of Pharmaceuticals to ensure justice is served and NIPER Mohali is restored to its esteemed standing. (To be concluded)
