Promotion: excellence is the hall mark, what about NIPER ?

19 failed PGI faculty get another chance for growth

Shimona Kanwar, TNN Dec 27, 2012, 06.39AM IST There is still a ray of hope for 19 faculty members at the PGI who were not selected following a new criteria for promotion implemented last year. During a meeting convened under the chairmanship of Dr V M Katoch, head of the Indian Council of Medical Research, Delhi, it was agreed to reconsider their case. Confirming this, he said, "We will certainly give them a chance as they had represented their matter. But their case has to be passed by the governing body which is the approving authority."

An expert committee headed by Katoch, who is also the secretary of the department of health research, Government of India, had amended the norms for promotions for the faculty. These 'failed' members were considered unfit for promotion by the selection committee headed by Katoch. It was revised to give more emphasis on publications in renowned journals and the number of grants. Following the new scheme for promotion, the grants increased from Rs 14 to Rs 25 crore in a year.

Earlier, after four years, an assistant professor was promoted to associate professor. It took another four years to become additional professor and another seven years to be a full-time professor. This was the 4, 4, 7 scheme of promotion. To encourage early promotions on basis of research work, the government of India initiated 3, 3, 4 instead. Also, the salary according to the sixth pay commission has been increased three times. But the central government wanted quality work. "There was a meeting with the ICMR head during the alumni meet. We are not sure of the results, but these faculty have challenged the selection scheme. They have contested that there are few who have been promoted not following the revised norms," said Dr Ritesh Agarwal, general secretary, faculty association, PGI.


On the contrary most of the NIPER promotion is doled out to undeserving faculty and staff members. A case is pending in Punjab and Haryana High-Court challenging promotion of NIPER faculty members

State-Sponsored-Corruption

Will NIPER Director selection follow the same path?



Attached CAT-Delhi order on appointment of Dr Kiran katoch w/o VM katoch -selection illegal.
I wish you good luck Dr. Roy.

Dr Anil kumar Gupta
Scientist F
9719459437

Needs no title

Constitution of NIPER Senate is not as per the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. HC

CHANDIAGRH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the notification of Senate of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali. 

Disposing of a petition filed by Dr. Neeraj Kumar and another, Justice Rajesh Bindal said,"For the reasons mentioned above, it is held that the constitution of Senate of the Institute is not as per the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. The same needs to be re-notified after corrections. Let an exercise to that effect be carried out expeditiously and if possible before the next meeting of the Senate." 

So far as validity of NIPER Degree awarded in fifth and sixth Convocation is concern, nobody has any clear idea but following facts are known to all concern. 

Ø  NIPER Senate is supposed to be made by Board like other statutory committees

Ø  The senate recommends the degree and Board approves it.

Ø  In the 1st meeting of new Board senate formation was not discussed.

Ø The Current Senate is made after 1st meeting of new Board and before Fifth Convocation.

Ø  Board has not conferred degree before fifth or sixth covocations

DG's together to select 'Director for NIPER’

DELHI: The five member selection committee consisting of Director Generals of ICMR, CSIR, DBT, DST is constituted to look for the new director of National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, (NIPER), Mohali. The comittee is meeting  on 21st Dec 2012 to 'identify the most suitable candidates’ for the post. Nine candidates in total are called for the interview, five are from NIPER, Mohali including ex and officiating directors. Candidates from NII, ITRC, DRDO and Gour University are also in the race.

Corruption on......single tender procurement

Stop single tender procurement, CVC tells govt departments, PSUs
TNN | Dec 14, 2012, 04.10AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Central Vigilance Commission has asked departments and public sector units to immediately stop single tender procurement, and to make public all such purchases made in recent times.

In a circular issued on Tuesday, CVC said it had been receiving several complaints about the practice of single tender procurement being rampant in government agencies. The CVC's latest circular said it had been receiving a large number of complaints about arbitrary purchases by PSUs and government departments without a transparent tendering.

"Irregular purchase of Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) valuing Rs. 432.98 lakh at NIPER"

The Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of India sanctioned first installment of 250.00 lakh as financial assistance to the project “Facility for Toxicity Screening on nano Particle used for Drug ……Its mechanism of action” for purchase of Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM). Quotation for the same was much higher.

Institute took up the case with GOi for release of additional grant of 1.92 crore. GOI sanctioned 92.13 lakh

Rest of the cost of the equipment approx 1 crore was met by NIPER from its own sources.

Equipment was purchased from M/s EFI Company Europe through their agent M/s Analytical equipment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, only and only one party responded to NIPER tender notice (Custom made specification against the Competition Commission of India Rule?)

Para 4 Irregular purchase of imported equipment valuing Rs. 432.98 lakh

In this regard following observation were made by CAG,

1.     Why the purchase procedure mentioned under General Finance Rules, 2005 e.g. regarding inviting global tender was not followed in purchase of imported equipments in all the cases

2.     Reason for delay in installation may be apprised to audit.

3.     Why the NIPER admitted to fund the purchase of equipment from its own sources and detailed of sources from which the equipment was funded, may be furnished to audit

4.     What benefits the institute has envisaged from the TEM laboratory.

In response: NIPER kept mum about point no 1, 2 & 3 and in response to point no 4 wrote “the equipment is installed recently, therefore it is too early to assess its utility for the purpose other then teaching and research”

CAG: the reply is general one, Para stands

Question remains from where Rs. 1 crore came? Who is the beneficiary of single quotation purchase of 432.98 lakh?

            
           The indenter? Purchase committee? Director? or somebody above?

Crime Act of Corruption in officiating Director and CVO Collusion

Corruption on...... Dr. Waghmare ...... no answer

Letter of Appreciation on removal of a ineligible, incompetent and unknowledgeable officer.

A. K. Kakria

Consultant, NIELIT

SCO 114-116, Sector-17B

Chandigarh

5th December 2012

To
The Director
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research
Sector-68
Mohali

Sir,

This has a reference to the news item under the caption “Court sets aside appointment of NIPER’s Registrar” in the Hindustan Times of today, the 5th December, 2012. I appreciate the decision of the Honorable Punjab & Haryana High Court as it will amount to shunting out of an ineligible and incompetent officer holding the very crucial and important position of Registrar in your esteemed organization. Needless to say, the person was an egoistic, and having a negative attitude and approach. Such people have proved very hazardous to the organizations. I came to know of it during a very short inter action with him of about 20 minutes during my interview for the post of Deputy Registrar (Administration) last month.

The so called Registrar who himself had shallow knowledge of central government rules and regulations was a member of the Selection Committee, asked me a question “after what period of time a post lapses”. When I  replied that it lapses after the expiry of one year from the date it had fallen vacant and has to be got revived as per the directives of the MoF, he, many times, repeated that I was wrong and it’s three years, not one year. Though he was wrong he wanted to make me agree to his point.  A candidate can’t, you know, confront a member of the selection committee, and if he does, he is taken otherwise. When I didn’t agree to his view point, he started asking hypothetical questions. I concluded, during interview, that this man didn’t want any knowledgeable person as deputy under him and felt a pity for such an officer.

I had read many interviews of toppers of the UPSC’s Civil Services Examinations. Most of the candidates had mentioned in their interviews that the attitude of the members of the selection panel was very much co-operative and non-confrontal, unlike this gentleman.

I am happy and congratulate you as NIPER has got rid of an ineligible, incompetent and unknowledgeable officer.

Sincerely,

[A. K. KAKRIA]

Role of IMTech and IISER Directors in NIPER Registrar Recrutement are also questionable

Mohali: The Punjab Harayana High Court set aside the selection and appointment of P. J. P. Singh Waraich as registrar of NIPER. The court passed the judgment while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Parikshit Bansal and Dr. Neeraj Kumar, Asst Professors, NIPER, challenging the appointment. This judgement not only shade light on NIPER malpractices but also questions integrity of directors of IMTech and IISER 

"At that stage, the Selection Committee, some of the members of which were part of the Screening Committee, very well in the knowledge of the educational qualifications and the experience of the short listed candidates which were merely 7 in number. Meaning thereby they knew as to how many marks one can get for educational qualification and the experience." As per the judgement Screening committee members are 1) Prof. KK Bhutani, Director, NIPER (Chairman); 2) Prof. N. Sathyamurthy, Director, IISER, S.A.S. Nagar; 3) Dr. Girish Sahani, Director, IMTECH, Chandigarh. 

As per the Hindustan times report, “Bhutani had extracted R20 lakh from Waraich and had interviewed him in May. Waraich had then been appointed despite the fact that Waraich did not meet the requisite qualifications of eligibility for the post of Registrar at NIPER, Mohali.”

Now question remains why Prof. N. Sathyamurthy, Director, IISER, S.A.S. Nagar; 3) Dr. Girish Sahani, Director, IMTECH, Chandigarh recommended and selected a unqualified person for the post of NIPER Registrar? Who shared Rs. 20 lakhs only chairman or..........?

One NIPER Faculty member made the following observation on the selection of Wing Cdr. P.J.P. Singh Waraich (Retd.) as Registrar, NIPER:   

1.      At page 10, Sr. no. 20,  Respondent no. 3 was having three third divisions in Matric, Higher secondry and B. com.

2.      At page 15, Sr. No. 22, There were 19 applicants for the post.

3.      At page 16, Sr. no. 25, Screeing committee comprising as 1) Prof. KK Bhutani, Director, NIPER (Chairman); 2) Prof. N. Sathyamurthy, Director, IISER, S.A.S. Nagar; 3) Dr. Girish Sahani, Director, IMTECH, Chandigarh

4.      At page 16-19, sr. No. 26-34 describe the process of screeing.

5.      At page 19, Sr. No. 35, The criteria was determined by the selection committee on 09.06.2011, the date on which the interview was to take place. At that stage, the Selection Committee, some of the members of which were part of the Screening Committee, very well in the knowledge of the educational qualifications and the experience of the short listed candidates which were merely 7 in number. Meaning thereby they knew as to how many marks one can get for educational qualification and the experience. 

6.      Sr. 36-48 at page 20-23 describes the arbitrariness in the screening and selection process.

7.      At page 23, Sr. No. 48 As far as the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the interview are concerned, as the same are in terms of satisfaction of the Interview Committee, this court is not in a position to opine thereon. But the fact remains that there were four members of the Selection Committee, if they had interviewed the candidates they must have been given separate sheets for the assessment of each candidate. The record as to how each of the candidate was assessed by each member of the Selection Committee individually, has not been produced.    

8.      Sr. No. 50 at page 23-24 describes as “xxxxxxx. However, as the facts of the case suggest the exercise for equation of post held by the candidates, which were different than those mentioned in the advertisement for the purpose of experience, has not been done in the present case. The number of candidates were having experience working on different posts. The Screening or the Selection Committee was required to apply mind and on the basis of the para-meters laid down for equation of posts should have taken a conscious decision to hold a candidate eligible or ineligible for consideration. The exercise having not been done, it cannot be termed that respondent No. 3 was eligible for the post.

9.      Sr. No. 51 at page 24 describes as “There is no material placed even before this court except the bio-data submitted by respondent No. 3 himself. It cannot be termed that whatever claimed by respondent No. 3 in his application should have been considered as a true statement in the absence of a certificate from the employer. In fact, as is evident from the record, the appointing authority in the present case was misled while considering the entire service career of twenty three years of respondent No. 3 as relevant experience and awarded the marks accordingly, whereas in the written statement, it stated that respondent No. 3 was having 16 years experience on a gazetted post. Even the record, which was prepared at the time of scrutiny of the application shows that it was mentioned therein that the experience of respondent No. 3 is 'not O.K.' as the experience certificate is not attached. There is no experience certificate produced on record by respondent No. 3 even upto the date of interview. The selection was being made to the post of responsibility. Casualness in the process could not be  expected, as is evident from the case in hand.

Finally

"For the reasons mentioned above, the selection and appointment of respondent no. 3 on the post of Registrar is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."

Questions being asked after removal of PJP Singh; Registrar NIPER

1. Legal expenses incurred by NIPER to defend the case CWP-6458 of 2012 regarding the selection & appointment of Mr. PJP Singh Waraich as Registrar, NIPER. NIPER is a public funded Institute and all the money comes from tax-payers.

2. Action taken by NIPER after 30.11.2012 for the post of Registrar, NIPER.

3. Amount of Salaries and expenses to be recovered from Mr. Wariach/NIPER administration, paid during the period of 04.07.2011 to 30.11.2012 due to illegal occupation on the post of Registrar, NIPER. 

4. Validity of orders (Regarding appointment, termination, show-cause notices and any other administrative order) issued by Mr. PJP Singh Waraich as Registrar, NIPER starting from 04.07.2011 till date.


5. Validity of the academic degrees (Master and PhD students) signed by Mr. PJP Singh Waraich.

Rajya Sabha questions to be answered on 07.12.12:

Report of financial and administrative lapses at NIPER, Mohali

1588. DR. JANARDHAN WAGHMARE: Will the Minister of CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS be pleased to refer to answer to Unstarred Question 1912 given in the Rajya Sabha on 30 March, 2012 and state:

(a) whether the Report regarding serious Financial and Administrative allegations have been received from the Board of Governors;
(b) if so, the details thereof; and
(c) the action taken by Government in the matter?


Vacant post of regular Director at NIPER in Mohali

1589. DR. JANARDHAN WAGHMARE: Will the Minister of CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS be pleased to state:

(a) whether it is a fact that National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, Punjab has been without regular Director since 2010;
(b) if so, whether it is also a fact that the Board of NIPER was constituted in June, 2011;
(c) the details of Board resolutions regarding selection of regular Director of NIPER; and
(d) the details of complaints received by the Central Vigilance officer of the Ministry and the action taken thereon?

HC sets aside Wing Cdr Waraich's appointment as NIPER registrar

Punjab Newsline Tuesday, December, 04 2012 -CHANDIAGRH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court today set aside the appointment of Wing Cdr PJP Singh Waraich as the Registrar of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali.

Disposing of a petition filed by Dr. Parikshit Bansal and another, Justice Rajesh Bindal said, “There is no material placed even before this court except the bio-data submitted by respondent (Waraich) himself. It cannot be termed that whatever claimed by respondent in his application should have been considered as a true statement in the absence of a certificate from the employer.

“In fact, as is evident from the record, the appointing authority in the present case was misled while considering the entire service career of twenty three years of respondent as relevant experience and awarded the marks accordingly, whereas in the written statement, it stated that respondent was having 16 years experience on a gazetted post.

“Even the record, which was prepared at the time of scrutiny of the application shows that it was mentioned therein that the experience of respondent is 'not O.K.' as the experience certificate is not attached.

“There is no experience certificate produced on record by respondent even up to the date of interview. The selection was being made to the post of responsibility. Casualness in the process could not be expected, as is evident from the case in hand.

“For the reasons mentioned above, the selection and appointment of respondent on the post of Registrar is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly”.

NIPER had issued advertisement for selection to the post of Registrar on January 29, 2011. After considering the eligibility of the applicants, the interview was held and finally the respondent was selected.

The petitioners were not the candidates for the post, but they approached the court on the plea that the respondent was not eligible for the post in question. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the advertisement for the post of Registrar certain basic qualifications and the experience were required.

Any one holding the qualifications and experience, as prescribed, was to be eligible. In case any candidate was not holding qualification as prescribed, but claimed that the qualification held by him should be treated equal, the authority was required to apply its mind.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that though the respondent was having more than 55% marks in post graduation, his administrative experience was not as was required in the advertisement.

He never worked on the post of Deputy Registrar for a period of eight years. Counsel further submitted that the selected candidate did not have requisite experience after getting his degree of post graduation. “His selection was a result of favourtism. There were other meritorious candidates fulfilling the requisite qualifications and even better qualified, but still were ignored”.

Albert Pinto Ko Gussa Kyon Aata Hai

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 4:56 PM

To: 'director@niper.ac.in'; 'Dean, NIPER'; 'Director, NIPER'; 'Dr (Mrs) M.E. Sophia'; 'Dr (Mrs) Prabha Garg'; 'Dr (Mrs) Sarasija Suresh'; 'Dr (Mrs) Sushma Singh'; 'Dr A.S. Bhatia'; 'Dr Abhay Pande'; 'Dr Abhay T. Sangamwar'; 'Dr Anand Sharma'; 'Dr Anil Angrish'; 'Dr Chaaya Iyenger'; 'Dr Dipika Bansal'; 'Dr G.B. Jena'; 'Dr I.P. Singh'; 'Dr Ipsita Roy'; 'Dr Joydev Laha'; 'Dr Kulbhushan Tikoo'; 'Dr Manjinder Singh'; 'Dr P. Bansal'; 'Dr S.K. Guchhait'; 'Dr Sanjay M. Jachak'; 'Dr Sanyog Jain'; 'Dr Shyam S. Sharma'; 'Dr Sunil Gupta'; 'Dr Vipin Nair'; 'Dr.Naresh Kumar'; 'Prof. A.K. Bansal'; 'Prof. A.K. Chakraborti'; 'Prof. Jyoti K. Paliwal'; 'Prof. K.K. Bhutani'; 'Prof. K.P.R. Kartha'; 'Prof. P.P. Singh'; 'Prof. P.V. Bharatam'; 'Prof. Pramil Tiwari'; 'Prof. Rahul Jain'; 'Prof. Saranjit Singh'; 'Prof. U.C. Banerjee'

Cc: 'rmoza@niper.ac.in'

Subject: RE: Judgement regarding the Registrar, NIPER.

Dear Faculty members and staff NIPER,

I am attaching the judgment regarding Registrar, NIPER for your information. It is very much evident from the Judgment (24 pages) the selection process adopted in NIPER for Registrar, NIPER that Registrar was having three third division.

I kindly request to all faculty members/staff to find any candidate at any post who is having three third division in his academic record and is working in NIPER.

It is also important to note that same person(Mr. PJP Singh Waraich, Registrar quashed by Hon’ble court)  is the signatory on the degrees of master and PhD students who worked so hard to earn their degrees.  

Sincerely,

NIPER Senate and degree is under scanner of HC

 Punjab Haryana High court scrutinizing another case against Officiating Directors wrongdoing, CWP18789/2011 is being heard regarding wrong constitution of Senate and award of degree

Ø  NIPER Senate is supposed to be made by Board like other statutory committees

Ø  The senate recommends the degree and Board approves it.

Ø  In the 1st meeting of new Board senate formation was not discussed.

Ø  The Current Senate is made after 1st meeting of new Board and before Fifth Convocation.

Ø  As per statutory requirement Senate has no representation from humanities.

Ø  Board meeting has not commenced in between senate meeting and convocation.

Ø  Punjab and Haryana High-court will decide on the legality of constitution of Senate today.

Appointment of NIPER registrar set aside

NOV 30: Mohali The Punjab Harayana High Court set aside the selection and appointment of P. J. P. Singh Waraich as registrar of NIPER. The court passed the judgment while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Parikshit Bansal and Dr. Neeraj Kumar, Asst Professors, NIPER, challenging the appointment.

The petitioner had alleged that the selection committee  had selected the current incumbent flaunting all the rule and guideline posted in the advertisement  For the post of the registrar prerequisite was 15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post (AGP Rs 7600). However as per the document current registrar joined as Wing commander wef 17 June 2008 in Rs 7600 AGP. Thus not fulfilling the criterion. Formal complains regarding the appointment of registrar was lodged by three faculty members to Chairman BOG before filling the petition, but BOG failed to adjudicate the Grievance.  Holding that the selection was not correct and sustainable, the court observed that a strange procedure had been followed by the selection committee. 

it is also reported that PJP Singh Waraich had reportedly given KK Bhutani a sum of Rs. 20 lakh for his appointment as the Registrar. A NIPER staff, who does not want to be named said, “Bhutani had extracted R20 lakh from Waraich and had interviewed him in May. Waraich had then been appointed despite the fact that Waraich did not meet the requisite qualifications of eligibility for the post of Registrar at NIPER, Mohali.”

Satyamev Jayate

Ajmal Kasab Hanged................. 

Decision reserved for NIPER Registrar appointment; HC

Chandigarh: 16th Nov 2012 Civil Writ Petition filed in Punjab and Harayana High court challenging the appointment of PJP Singh Waraich was up for argument. Case was argued for approximately two and half hours and pertinent questions regarding appointing authority, selection procedure and procedure adopted for award of marks to the candidates appeared for interview was scrutinized.   

For the post of the registrar prerequisite was 15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post (AGP Rs 7600). However as per the document current registrar joined as Wing commander wef 17 June 2008 in Rs 7600 AGP. Thus not fulfilling the criterion. Formal complains regarding the appointment of registrar was lodged by three faculty members to Chairman BOG before filling the petition, but BOG failed to adjudicate the Grievance.  

Yet another

Chandigarh: Dr. Parikshit Bansal  filled another CWP No 20746 of 2012 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ order or direction to 1) KK Bhutani, Officiating Director, 2) NIPER, through Registrar 3) BoG, NIPER through Chairman. 

Dr. Bansal place the matter before the court as a malafide act of KK Bhutani, Officiating Director, with intent to harm the career and intimidate a petitioner. This is because he is filed another case CWP No. 14537 of 2012, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the C.B.I. to conduct a detailed and thorough investigation into the financial irregularities and lapses which have taken place at National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), as the CVC on the complaint of the petitioner has failed to hold an inquiry into the matter and thus failed to perform its mandatory duties.

Tech degree invalid: HC

CHANDIGARH: Terminating the validity of the degrees and diplomas in technical courses issued by various deemed universities and institutes to the students of the region through distance learning programmes, Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday held that the issuance of such academic certificates is illegal.

The decision would primarily affect thousands of employees of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, who had got departmental promotions on the basis of the degrees and diplomas from deemed universities and institutions, situated outside the region, in recent years.

The division bench, comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Rajiv Narain Raina, passed the judgment stating that the University Grants Commission (UGC and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) didn't approve of this practice.

(Kartar Singh v. Union of India, CWP No.1640 of 2008, decided on November 6, 2012

Contrary to the popular belief; Punjab and Haryana high court did not show mercy to the degree holder students. Its a very tough time to such candidates who are the alumni of these university.

Lawyers needed ............

............ to help & protect corrupt NIPER officials............

Another

CWP No 20462 of 2012

5) KK Bhutani, Officiating Director   4) Director, NIPER     3)NIPER, through Registrar    2) BoG, NIPER through Chairman    1) UOI, through secretary DOP Vs  Dr. Nilanjan Roy 

Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ order or direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari  quashing the order dated 20.04.2012 passed by  officiating Director, Dr. K.K. Bhutani (Respondent no. 5), dismissing the petitioner from service, being not only illegal and arbitrary but also having passed by the incompetent authority having no jurisdiction as provided under the statutory rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner as well as the order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the appellate authority being unjust, unfair, against the principles of natural justice and totally disproportionate and the settled proposition of law in a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex court and this Hon'ble court   

Fall of a premier institute

Illustration: Karno Guhathakurta

Amid funds siphoning allegations, future of National Institute of Pharma Education seems bleak

WHEN the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research was set up in 1998, people had high hopes. Established in Mohali, Punjab, as an IIT-equivalent premier institute, NIPER was to set the standard in pharma research in the country, while producing experts and offering technical consultations to small-scale industries. For a country whose pharma industry relies on affordable bulk drugs and generic medicines, an institute like NIPER is essential to provide new molecules and innovations that the industry could access. This is particularly important for small-scale pharma firms that, unlike pharma giants, do not have in-house research facilities. But of late, NIPER has been mired in controversy, mostly due to funds embezzlement and administrative problems, dissuading students from enrolling themselves at this apex pharma research institute.

The latest controversy is a public interest petition filed by the institute’s associate professor Parikshit Bansal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking a CBI inquiry into misappropriation of funds for the department of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and action against the former and incumbent directors of the institute.

Bansal, who is with the department of pharmaceutical management, has accused former director P Rama Rao of siphoning funds earmarked for the IPR department. Under the 11th Five Year Plan, the Centre had sanctioned Rs 2.25 crore for setting up the IPR department, meant to offer masters programme in IPR management as well as conduct training programmes for the faculty of NIPER and sister institutes so that they can learn to manage their patents effectively. In 2009, Bansal says, he chanced upon a few internal documents which showed that the Centre had disbursed Rs 1.15 crore since 2007. “I was never told about the funds, even though I was in-charge of the project,” he alleges. That year, he blew the whistle by writing to the President of India, he Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Board of Governors of NIPER, apprising them of the embezzlement. Rama Rao resigned in the midst of the controversy.

The newly appointed officiating director, K K Bhutani, promised Bansal a new beginning. In 2010, the Centre released another parcel for the IPR project: Rs 47 lakh. Bansal alleges that Bhutani sanctioned more than half of the allotted money for buying SciFinder software, a research tool, even though it was not approved under the plan. RTI queries by a few other professors of the institute in 2011 revealed that the central vigilance officer of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers, under whose ambit the institute falls, had not initiated any inquiry into Bansal’s complaints. Following this, Bansal approached the high court in August this year. The court has issued notice to the institute, the directors and the Department of Pharmaceuticals. The case will be heard on November 16.

Chequered past

Bansal’s experience is not a one-off case. In April this year, NIPER dismissed Nilanjan Roy, associate professor in the department of biotechnology, on charges of embezzlement of funds.

But Roy shares the other side of the story with Down To Earth: “They kicked me out because I exposed misappropriation of funds in purchase of diesel, hiring of support staff and buying spare parts.” He wrote to V M Katoch, chairperson of board of governors of NIPER, asking for a probe into his expulsion, but his appeal was dismissed. Roy has recently moved high court. Similarly, in 2005 the contract of a scientist, Animesh Roy, in the organic chemistry department was not renewed on charges of disobedience and poor performance. NIPER was forced to take him back after an inquiry by the board of governors found the charges invalid.

Bansal, Nilanjan Roy, and another colleague Neeraj Kumar, have now taken it upon themselves to expose the alleged mismanagement. They have created a blog, where they post incidences of corruption and mismanagement, replies to their RTI queries and questions raised in Parliament regarding NIPER.

Their expose has created a buzz in Parliament. In 2012, eight questions were raised in the Lok Sabha, most of them pertaining to financial misappropriations. Replying to a question on September 6, Union Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilizers Srikant Kumar Jena said the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) did not find any lapses in the institute and that the institute has an internal audit system in place since May 2011.

Replying to another question, Jena said neither the government nor the board of governors of NIPER received any written complaint regarding financial irregularities. Documents with Down To Earth, though, show the contrary.

The three whistle-blowers have already caused a stir among the NIPER administration. K K Bhutani told Down To Earth that the three scientists have disrupted the functioning of the institute. His view is shared by Jagdeep Singh, secretary general of the SME (small medium enterprises) Pharma Industries Consortium (SPIC), which facilitates interaction between small-scale pharma firms and NIPER. “Scientists are unable to work as they spend all their time answering public interest petitions, RTIs and Parliament questions. All of them have been engineered by these three scientists.”

Opportunity lost?

Despite the problems, research and industry experts think the institute has an important role to play. “It has a great faculty, a strong advisory council and the research is cutting edge,” says Girish Sahni, a member of NIPER board of governors and director of the Institute of Microbial Technology in Chandigarh.

Since it was established, NIPER has applied for 190 patents and got 40 of them approved. Seven of them have been successfully commercialised. One sold to Indian firm InSwift is an improved process of making blood thinning drug Clopidogrel. The others include improved microbicides and anti-malarials. Bhutani contends that “business is not our motto”. “We create manpower for the pharmaceutical industry and do cutting-edge research. The Thomson Reuters Awards for Excellence is a testimony to our efforts,” he says. NIPER received the award for excellence in research and analysis. In the past two years, Bhutani says, NIPER has had 1,378 research publications. Between 2008 and 2011, the institute produced 461 post-graduates, 144 MBAs and 48 PhDs.

Not all experts are impressed with this. “The right question to ask here is what kind of patents are these,” says N Raghuram, former secretary of Society for Scientific Values, a watchdog organisation. “These are not new molecules or products, but merely new processes of making old molecules or improved versions of older products,” he says.

Lalit Kumar Jain, who is a member of board of governors, elected by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, and SME pharma owner, says the quality of scientists in NIPER is bad. “That is why they have not been able to do original research.”

Singh, however, quashes Jain’s allegations, saying he was expelled from SPIC for unethical practices. The industry stands by NIPER, he adds. T R Gopalakrishnan, adviser with the Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association, is also content with NIPER’s performance. “Drug manufacturing is an excruciatingly lengthy procedure. A lot of clinical studies need to be performed. Twelve years is indeed a very short time and seven commercialisations are not bad,” Gopalakrishnan says.

Sahni believes the prevailing problems can be tackled by hiring a regular director. Singh suggests that the institute should hire more staff to answer RTI and Parliament questions. “Why should the director and scientists waste their time?” he asks.

According to Raghuram, root of the problem lies with the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, which, unlike the health and science and technology ministries, has no experience in handling research institutes. He, however, reckons that transferring the institute to another ministry may not be the solution. “All scientific institutes in the country function in a feudal manner. The director rules the roost, and the scientists don’t have much of a say.” Raghuram adds that the internal decision making process should be more democratic, and that a decision making body should be carefully selected, with a balanced mix of internal and external experts. “The ministry should ask the scientists to vote for the council.”

As the administrative problems and financial irregularities continue, students are the ultimate losers. Raghuram says NIPER is no longer top choice for students. In September students at the newly set up NIPER-Ahmedabad held protests against inadequate lab facilities and below-par teaching standard.

In recent years six new NIPERs have been set up across the country—Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Hajipur, Kolkata, Rae Bareli and Guwahati. The institute receives generous funds from the government—it was granted Rs 156 crore under the 11th Plan alone. The ministry has pitched a vision paper for Rs 1,400 crore for NIPER in the 12th Plan. But experts suggest it would be good to tackle the administrative problems first.

Source URL: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/fall-premier-institute

MPs demand 50% reservation for the corrupt - The Times of India

"We will consider backing 33% reservation for women (in exchange for a small fee) only after government accedes to our request," said the bearded MP heading the group. 

Some netas were shocked at this demand. One senior politician told Mocktale on condition of anonymity that the flipside of this bill could mean "the remaining 50% of Parliamentarians may actually be honest". 

ICMR denied information in response to RTI

8th Sep Mohali: The administrative procedures followed by NIPER to suspend and dismiss Dr. Nilanjan Roy were  totally arbitrary, dictatorial and violative of basic rules and regulations of GoI. His wife Sonali Roy complained against KK Bhutani Officiating director to Committee of petitions Lok Sabha seeking Justice.  The Lok Sabha Committee directed Chairman BOG, NIPER through Department of Pharmaceuticals, to act upon her petition. One year after her complain Mrs Roy filed an RTI to ICMR asking what action DG ICMR had taken taken on her petition, failing to get response from CPIO, she filed and appeal to appellate authority, ICMR. 

Neither CPIO nor appellate authority responded her quarry as per RTI act. On the contrary she got a funny unrelated response regarding appeal of Dr. Nilanjan Roy from a person unrelated to ICMR. A consultant to chairman, NIPER Mohali, gave hear misleading information flaunting RTI rule. Now she is filling a complain to CIC New delhi and also to other appropriate legal authority against deliberate violation of RTI 2005 act by ICMR.

Nepotism continues

Three-in one professor is now consultant with all benefits of Faculty including housing

NIPER Administration /Offg. Director has given 3 different statements at 3 different places regarding appointment of Dr.Naresh Kumar.

Statement 1 :  Appointment of Dr. Naresh Kumar is as Professor in Pharmaceutical Management  (NIPER Registrar Office Order no. F.1-3(293)/2011/Estt./1343 dated 19-10-2011 , indicating Dr.Naresh as Professor, Pharmaceutical Management)

Statement 2 :  Appointment of Dr. Naresh Kumar is as Professor in Business Development Group, NIPER (Statement of Prof. K.K.Bhutani given to the Chairman, APDC and duly documented  in SIGNED final minutes of 13^th APDC meeting held at NIPER on 19-11-2011, as agenda item no. 13.6)

Statement 3 :  Appointment of Dr. Naresh Kumar is as Professor in Intellectual Property Rights Cell, Deptt. Of Pharmaceutical Management.

(RTI response given vide NIPER Letter no. F 235/RTI 43/2012/1030 dated 4-5-2012 )

NIPER-A strike called off

Ahmedabad 3 oct 2012: Students of NIPER-A has withdrawn the 17-day 'NIPER bandh' following a six hours meeting with three member committee send to  PERD center by Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP). The students were protesting lack of facilities on the college premises, and stipend cut.

The students co-ordination committee called off the strike after receiving assurance from Dr. Saranjit Singh of NIPER Mohali Dr. Naresh Kumar of CSIR and  Mr. S C Sharma of DOP that department will soon address their grievances.

"The committee told us that the strike will cause inconvenience to semester system curriculum of the ongoing course. They have given us assurance to address all the issue of stipend cut, adequate library and laboratory facility will be established soon. Issues like permanent director, faculty recrutement and campus establishment will be done within a reasonable timeframe,". NIPER Mohali will recrute a nodal officer and project director will be changed in consultation with PERD center, ministry and the nodal officer. Committee also added that if the PERD center does not follow the NIPER Statutes and Ordinance strictly students can call the personal mobile number of the committee members and lodge complain. 

The PERD center  has transferred full stipend to all students,  Rs 8000 for masters students and 18000 for PhD students for the month of September without any cut for the first time. "We don't want to spoil our future. We will have to join classes since we are falling behing of semester schedule" added one student. 

"Do not leave us alone!"

We know we are corrupt ...........
                      but we need you more now..........

Happy Birthday Bapu

Conversation

 why this cola-very PhD.

• 
  

  Student Sir, i respect you as a teacher...and i know that you are fighting for a good cause....but if you promote this type of blog it may affect the image of the institute adversely and indirectly may be the students of NIPER....

  Tuesday at 11:42pm · Like · 1
• 
  

  Teacher Dear student do you think the status of NIPER students are good now? Some of the students are not even geting Med rep job, Director himself calling NIPR students beggars, what worst can happened than this?

  Yesterday at 6:24am · Like · 1
• 
  

  Another student NIPER are abysmal and shoddy state. It is just a NAME TAG no more science is being done. By this I dont want to demoralise any students but it is a serious concern and needs to be taken care of.

  8 hours ago · Like
• 
  

  Student Sir do you think that this blog is going to solve all the problem?

  
  

  suppose sir because of your blog even if a single company avoid to come to NIPER for the placement then who will be responsible for that?

  17 minutes ago · Like
• 
  

  Sir You! this blog is not for solving problem, the intention is to educate people where is the problem, so that they can solve the problem. NIPER Mohali is now giving PhD in pharmaceutics degree to a MSc Biotechnology, do you think that is right thing to do? NIPER IS GOVING AVERAGE MARKS WITHOUT CONDUCTING CLASS AND EXAM do you think that is right? Company people are fool!! they know what is going on in Interview, thats why they are more interested in UIPS PUnjab University then NIPER. Now they are not interested in hiring any genuine PhD Pharmaceutics from NIPER, What should one do? let this continue or make people aware where is the problem and rectify it. You know where is the problem it is people like you. they keep mum in the face of all wrong doing and question genuine concern. This blog is not only point out problem it also present documentary proof. Prove me wrong I will not only leave NIPER immediately, i will leave teaching profession which is very close to my heart. I take salary for my work and i can not be unfair to my students future. You understand my perspective, if i work 20 years in NIPER and none of my students get job still my salary will be the same, then why i am taking so much of pain? Seems like a foolish thing to do is not it, please answer me that if you can

  2 minutes ago · Like