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.