Monday, 26 December 2011

Rajya Sabha question 1900 asked by DR. JANARDHAN WAGHMARE "The TRUTH" - Part I

DR. JANARDHAN WAGHMARE, Hon'ble Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabhva asked the question 
1900 (c) whether the selection committee of NIPER had experts in fields other than their specialization and if so, how contracts of various faculty members have been renewed;

 in Rajya Sabha held on Friday, December 9, 2011/Agrahayana 18, 1933 (Saka)

Truth is already communicated to BOG NIPER by one of NIPER Employee. Moreover two cases regarding wrong formation of selection committee are filed  CWP19277/2011 NEERAJ KUMAR vs NIPER AND UOI and CWP21402/2011 PARIKSHIT BANSALvs NIPER AND UOI     

Recently a professor of Management is selected by HoD(s) of Natural products, Biotechnology and Med. Chemistry in absence of management expert. 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Some imporatnt facts needed to be known to honorable BoG members before finalization of 54th BoG minutes

Professor V. M. Katoch,
Chairman, BoG NIPER, S.A.S. Nagar-160062.

Copy to: All BoG Members.

Sub: Reconsideration of selection committee recommendation for faculty promotion/renewal

Honorable BoG chairman,
In continuation my previous e.mail dated 15.08.2011, I am disclosing some real facts regarding selection committee (Contract renewal and Promotion under Career Advancement Scheme) with documentary proof which will be useful to this august body to make useful decision and bring transparency in NIPER.
I am again re-emphasizing that I am an employee of NIPER and sending this mail in this way because I am in fear that NIPER administration will be after me if I will disclosed my identity. In spite of this, once I will be assured for my security, I will disclose my identity.
I would like to mention that NIPER statutes adopted the only criterion for promotion is “excellence” and criterion for promotion under CAS is also very stringent as reproduced below.


NIPER has adopted IIT scale of Pay for faculty and staff members. The faculty members promoted/ renewal given by this selection committee are not worthy as per IIT criteria  (Annexure I). It is also observed that this committee and committees in the past has taken a generous approach of doling promotion when it comes to Faculty member’s promotion but the same is not true in case of other scientific staff and administrative staff. In fact there is no promotion policy existed for any member of NIPER staff other then faculty. 

More over the constitution of the present selection committee is not as per NIPER statutes. Facts related to the selection committee for the interview held on 29.10.2009 are as given below:

a)     The formation of selection committee by the NIPER statute should be:
Selection committee constitution as per NIPER statute under CAS (NIPER statute, Clause 3.6)
It is very clear that the same committee can Promote and also renew the tenure of the Faculty without any influence by Dean and HOD of the institute.

However the constitution of the selection committee based on whose recommendation BOG has given decision is flawed. Constitution of the committee was,

1.     Dr. Nityanand (Chairman)
2.     Dr. K. K. Talwar (academician nominated By BOG)
3.      Prof. Rama Rao (Director NIPER Ex offitio)
4.     And two subject expert.

As per Annexure II Dr. C. L. Kaul Ex Director NIPER served an expert in Four diverse subject area namely Pharmacology (his subject), Pharmaceutical analysis (Not his area), Pharmaceutical technology (IPR, not his area), Pharmacoinformatics (not his area).

Moreover Dr. V. K. Kapoor having only eight publication on analytical/synthetic chemistry became expert in natural products (Annexure III) for the selection/renewal of his friend Prof. K. K. Bhutani. it is also pertinent to mention that the same man is is also member of ten different committees in NIPER and have vested interest in Prof. K. K. Bhutani.

Further more a highly biased person like Professor Saranjit Singh was also present in the committee in the capacity of Dean NIPER.

Comments of Ombudsmen Committee about his ego and behavior are reproduced below. 

The Review Committee perused the statements/depositions of Prof. Saranjit Singh, who stated that, “he does not want to make any comment about the academic performance of Dr. Animesh Roy and once we decided to terminate him, it does not matter whether he is good or outstanding scientist or bad. So accordingly we terminated his services. Dr. Animesh Roy is a short tempered person and had hurt our egos, as he doesn’t respect us. He further suggested that if Dr. Animesh Roy services are reinstated based on his academic strength – he will support only on one condition that, he may be appointed in any other new NIPER, but not in NIPER, Mohali. However, if his services are reinstated in NIPER, Mohali, we four people will resign from NIPER under protest, as we can not tolerate him or his presence in NIPER, Mohali at any cost.”
This above statement of Prof. Saranjit Singh was an eye opener for the Committee as it was a out burst of his ego which leads to objectivity, when the person with this type of mind set can never be objective.
(Ombudsmen Committee report, Page#78, para 18)

Thus, based on these bare facts it is clear that, the present selection committee worked in a biased manner and promoted nepotism and should be ignored.

I strongly feel that this will help to August body to understand the pain of NIPER employee and to take right decision to bring transparency in the institute for the interest of Institute and the nation.

I am also sending this mail to officiating director and registrar NIPER to verify the facts stated in the mail. Every statement is having particular reference for verification.

One of NIPER employee.

No comments:

Post a Comment