Regularization as well as the appointment of Mr. Rajwinder Singh
This case pertains to the hiring and subsequent regularization of Mr. Rajwinder Singh as the Head of the Computer Center. Initially, he was appointed for a tenure of two years at a lower pay scale, despite the advertisement specifying a five-year contract with a higher pay scale. This adjustment enabled the Director to act as the appointing authority, bypassing the requirement for approval from the Board of Governors, which would have been necessary for a higher pay scale. Notably, Mr. Rajwinder’s qualifications, previous experience, and the nature of the job did not align with the requirements outlined in the advertisement.
One of the candidates who applied for the position possessed a higher qualification (a Ph.D.), but his candidature was overlooked in favour of Mr. Rajwinder, who had claimed he would complete his Ph.D. within a few months of joining. However, as of 2025—ten years later—he has not completed the Ph.D. Despite this, his performance was never reviewed after the initial two-year period, which was a stipulated requirement in his offer of employment. Furthermore, the composition of the Performance Review Committee and the criteria used for evaluating his performance were questionable. One committee member, who was qualified in technical matters, was replaced by lower-ranking officials lacking technical expertise. Additionally, the Head of the Committee, though entrusted with assessing technical competence, had only a working knowledge of computers and networking, being from a biotechnology background.
Without proper performance evaluation, Mr. Rajwinder was regularized in his position. This was done despite satisfactory performance being a key requirement for the regularization process. Moreover, he was placed in the grade of faculty, even though he had not completed his Ph.D. This appointment and subsequent upgrades in his pay scale have led to a significant financial loss amounting to lakhs of rupees to the institution and the taxpayer.
Advertisement Details
Advertisement No. 14/2013 was issued for hiring a Head of the Computer Centre. The last date for applications was September 3, 2013, and the pay scale was announced as PB-4 (₹37,400-₹67,000) plus a grade pay of ₹8,700. This pay scale is typically accorded to faculty members in premier higher educational institutions like NIPER. The eligibility requirements were specific:
- Candidates were required to have an M.E./M. Tech. in Computer Science or an MCA with 55% marks and 15 years of experience in managing computer networks, including 4-5 years as a system engineer or equivalent.
- Alternatively, candidates could hold a Ph.D. with a consistently good academic record and seven years of experience in managing computer networks, including two years at a senior level.
- A desirable qualification included experience in IT management and expertise in systems security.
The advertisement explicitly stated that the appointment was initially contractual but mentioned that the contractual system was likely to be abolished.
Discrepancies in the Appointment
The offer letter dated February 28, 2014, issued to Mr. Rajwinder Singh, deviated from the advertisement in two major aspects:
- Tenure: Instead of the advertised five-year contract, he was appointed for two years.
- Pay Scale: He was offered PB-3 (₹15,600-₹39,100 with an initial start of ₹30,000 and a grade pay of ₹7,600) rather than PB-4.
The justification for offering a lower pay scale and tenure was that it allowed the Director to act as the appointing authority, circumventing the provisions of the NIPER Act, 1998, and NIPER statutes. This was conveyed by the Deputy Registrar (A&P), Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, in a communication dated August 22, 2016. Later, Mr. Rajwinder was moved to PB-4 after Board approval, which was presented as routine.
Issues with Experience and Qualifications
Mr. Rajwinder Singh’s prior experience, as listed in his application, included roles such as:
- Customer Support Engineer in a private company from September 1996 to July 1997.
- System Administrator/Engineer from August 1998 to February 2005.
- Lecturer and Assistant Professor at Lala Lajpat Rai Institute of Engineering & Technology until February 2005.
- Short stints at NITTTR Chandigarh and Chandigarh College of Engineering & Technology, where he worked on a contract basis with modest pay.
His educational qualifications included a Bachelor of Engineering in Electronics and Telecommunications from Babasaheb Naik College of Engineering in Yeotmal, Maharashtra, and a diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering from Haryana Polytechnic. Despite claiming in 2014 that he would complete his Ph.D. within months, this degree remains incomplete a decade later.
Irregularities in Recruitment and Regularization
Minutes from the Screening Committee meeting held on January 3, 2014, revealed that other candidates, including a Ph.D. holder, were better qualified. Nevertheless, Mr. Rajwinder was selected and joined on March 21, 2014, in a lower grade. The contract of service was not signed by the Officiating Director, a procedural anomaly.
The Board of Governors, during their 63rd meeting on April 21, 2014, was not informed that:
- The salary and tenure offered to Mr. Rajwinder deviated from the advertisement.
- No waitlist of candidates was prepared, contrary to government norms.
- The post required a Ph.D. and significant experience, which Mr. Rajwinder lacked.
In July 2014, he was regularized without a performance review, violating the two-year probation requirement. When performance was eventually reviewed in May 2017—over a year after the due date—the evaluation committee, chaired by Dr. U.C. Banerjee, who lacked relevant expertise, declared his performance satisfactory. This decision was based on self-appraisal submitted within 24 hours of the request.
Despite failing to fulfill key qualifications and performance benchmarks, Mr. Rajwinder was upgraded to the pay grade of a professor. This resulted in substantial financial losses for the institution. The entire process was riddled with procedural violations, favouritism, and irregularities, necessitating a thorough investigation.