Thursday, 31 May 2012

Questionable appointments at NIPER by officiating director

1. Recrutement of Registrar. The appointed Registrar was not eligible as per advertisement, yet he was appointed keeping The Board in dark leading to unnecessary litigation.

2. Regularization of four Asst. Professor recruited adhoc basis without proper selection procedure.

3. Recrutement of three in one professor Prof. Naresh Kumar as Professor in Pharmaceutical Management (NIPER Registrar Office Order no. F.1-3(293)/2011/Estt./1343 dated 19-10-2011), Business Development Manager (SIGNED final minutes of 13th APDC meeting held at NIPER on 19-11-2011, as agenda item no. 13.6) and as a Professor in IPR Department (RTI response given vide NIPER Letter no. F 235/RTI 43/2012/1030 dated 4-5-2012 ) without any advertisement and selection committee as per NIPEr rule. 

4. Recruitment of Prof. Jyoti Paliwal as a Professor in Pharmaceutics, on ad-hoc basis without advertisement and regularization of a Professor appointed on ad-hoc basis illegally. 

5. Recruitment of  Sh. Hari Mohan  as a Consultant without informing the BoG that he was a practicing Lawyer registered with the Bar Counsel, which is prohibited by law.

6. Recruitment of Dr. Madhu Tuli as Gynecologist as NIPER Doctor for 700 male student without advertisement. 

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

Nepotism @NIPER; the appointment of Dr. Naresh Kumar?

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 13th 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 )

Moreover the appointment is made without any advertisement and without proper selection committee. The regular selection process (as per  NIPER statutes and Govt. of India rules and constitution Art, 14 regarding equal opportunity)  involves:

- Making an open advt. clearly mentioning the essential requirements for post advertised.

- Short-listing of all candidates without any bias.

- Interview of the short-listed candidates by a Selection Committee constituted as per clause 3.6 of NIPER statutes and approved by the NIPER Board of Governors.

- Declaration of the result in a fair and transparent manner within a reasonable period of time.

 Bypassing these will amount to a serious violation of Statutes and suprim court order.

Para 19 of the judgment CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1272 OF 2011, “Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit.”

NOTE:  Business Development Group was a temporary scheme of 11th Five Year Plan which ended on 31st March, 2012 (Scheme No.N-09, Project Outlay Rs.1.75 crores). IPR Cell is a centralized section of the institute looking after patent filings. Appointments of faculty are made in well-defined departments and NOT IN SECTIONS, though faculty can be given charge of any section or cell. So, what is the truth regarding the appointment?

Supporting documents:

1. Appointment order
2.  Statement of Dr.Bhutani to APDC 
3. RTI-response

Monday, 28 May 2012

Whistleblower victimised, cry scientists 

Monday , May 28 , 2012, G.S. MUDUR

Sections of India’s scientific community are upset at what they allege is the victimisation of a whistleblower scientist at a premier academic institution who claims he has been punished for exposing administrative improprieties and financial irregularities.
The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Niper) near Chandigarh dismissed Nilanjan Roy, associate professor of biotechnology, in April this year, claiming he had tried to embezzle funds, refused to correct students’ papers and stopped taking an assigned class.
Roy claims the institute has concocted false allegations against him after he raised concerns about what he says were questionable appointments, irregularities in the purchase of diesel and spare parts of scientific equipment, and diversion of funds to unauthorised activities or projects.
A part of the diverted funds appear to have been spent on an Olympic-sized swimming pool, Roy and two other scientists at Niper have said. Niper director K.K. Bhutani has denied all these allegations.
The controversy has angered sections of scientists who recall that an inquiry panel had indicted Niper’s administration three years ago for punishing another whistleblower scientist, Animesh Roy, who had exposed scientific misconduct by the head of his department.
Animesh Roy has since been reinstated by the institute as directed by the inquiry panel.
In a letter of appeal sent to the chairman of Niper’s board of governors (BoG), Nilanjan Roy has claimed he had exposed instances of “financial irregularities and abuse and misuse of authority by the present officiating director, K.K. Bhutani.”
“The very person against whom I complained set up an inquiry against me on concocted charges and then dismissed me from service, while my appeal against the inquiry report is pending before you as the chairman of the BoG,” Nilanjan Roy wrote to Vishwa Mohan Katoch.
Katoch, who is also the director-general of the Indian Council of Medical Research, declined to discuss the details of the case.
However, he told The Telegraph: “I will approach this with the utmost neutrality and speed.”
Bhutani says Nilanjan Roy “cooked up” false charges against Niper’s administration.
“Instead of defending the charges he has been accused of, he is making counter-charges,” he said.
Bhutani said Nilanjan Roy’s dismissal followed an inquiry conducted by an independent scientist invited from the headquarters of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi.
“He has received an absolutely fair and independent inquiry,” Bhutani told this newspaper.
Senior scientists say they are unhappy with Katoch’s inaction.
“This is a fit case of whistle-blowing,” said Kasturi Lal Chopra, a former director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, and president of the Society for Scientific Values, a body tracking misconduct in science.
“Katoch is silent — his predecessors (as chairperson of Niper’s BoG) were unhappy with the management of Niper and got out of the mess,” Chopra said.
“After a lot of effort, Animesh was finally taken back. I hope Nilanjan does not face the same problem.”
Niper cut Nilanjan Roy’s salary by 50 per cent during the inquiry last year and stopped paying him last month after the dismissal order, a move Bhutani has defended as something he had to do “under government rules”.
Scientists have been circulating emails to generate support for Nilanjan Roy.
“It’s very important to protect such people, else they will just be quashed like bugs,” said Nandula Raghuram, associate professor of biotechnology at the Indraprastha University in New Delhi and a former secretary of the Society for Scientific Values.
Nilanjan Roy has support from within Niper too. Another faculty member, Parikshit Bansal, has also complained to Katoch that Niper’s administration had “misappropriated funds”, diverting money earmarked for an intellectual property rights project to pay for software unapproved under the project.
Bhutani told this newspaper the information provided by Bansal was “absolutely baseless and misleading”.
He said Bansal had complained to higher authorities, including the Central Vigilance Commission, and that Niper had “answered all these questions satisfactorily”.
Bansal had written to Katoch last July that given the technical nature of the projects, it would be difficult to “make out how the money has been misappropriated” unless the project’s scientific investigators were called in to clarify during audits or inquiry.
Nilanjan Roy, Bansal and a third Niper scientist, Neeraj Kumar, met Katoch early this month, urging him to reverse the dismissal order against Roy and set up an inquiry panel to look into the issues they had raised.
A BoG meeting is scheduled for tomorrow but Nilanjan Roy and Bansal say they do not know whether these issues would come up for discussion.
“Documents don’t lie — we have documentary evidence to support all that we are claiming,” Bansal said.
In October 2011, Nilanjan Roy had begun posting a blog titled “A biped against corruption” and uploading documents that, Bansal said, help establish the claims about irregularities.
Bhutani said Nilanjan Roy, Bansal and Kumar were the “only three” people causing trouble in Niper.

Sunday, 27 May 2012

The assumption vs The truth

The NIPER mess drags on

The case of Dr Nilanjan Roy, who was fired some time ago after he made accusations of financial impropriety against the NIPER management, seems to have no end in sight. A board meeting is scheduled on May 28, and one assumes that his case will be discussed. As I wrote earlier, I would like to see a review of the case by an independent committee.
I can add that four senior scientists at NIPER promised to resign if Animesh Roy is reinstated at NIPER: this threat, in the report that I received, was reproduced in The Telegraph in 2009. I wonder why they did not keep that promise.

Saturday, 26 May 2012

Code of Silence

Silence oF NIPER Board of Governors on corrupt practices of Officiating Director  surprises many, not only internal faculty but also external members of the scientific society. 

"BOG is extremely silent on formal complaints against corrupt Officiating Director, but quick to act on fictitious charges of Officiating Director against faculty members to victimized  whistle blower/complainant" 

Bog is so silent that  Dr. Neeraj Kumar had to get  a court order directing Dr V M Katoch to respond. If cases like this are left to the politicians to worry about, it does not speak well for Indian science. One can always worry the reason of silence; politics, economics or something else ???? 

Reason best known to NIPER Board of Governors

Not only NIPER faculty people out side are also surprized in BOG silence

Prof (Dr) K. L. Chopra (Padamshri) FNA, FASc, FNASc, FNAE, D.Sc.(hc)
(Former Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur) President,Society for Scientific Values

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Kasturi Chopra <> wrote:

We are trying our best to sensitize  Dr Katoch  but he is  silent and does not bother to respond even to the members of the BoG. We will continue to pursuade the BoG members to act.  I suggest that alll  EC members write to  Dr Katoch in this connection.Let us hope for common sense to prevail


You are most welcome to quote me that Katoch is dead silent . His two predecessors,  Ramasami and  Mashelkar were sympthetic  to our complaints regarding  Animesh  Roy but were very unhappy with  the manangement of NIPPER and mananged to get out of the mess. After a lot of our efforts ,   and trhe inquiry , Animesh was fuinally taken back after three years. I hope Nilanjan dies not face the same problem. Plesae  help a good cause.

All the whistle blowers are NIPER are in extreme pain and agony 

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Nilanjan Roy <> wrote:
Dr. V. M. Katoch, Chairman BOG, NIPER
Secretary, DHR & DG, ICMR
TB Association Building
3, Redcross Road New Delhi 110001

24th  May 2012

Sub: An appeal to BOG, NIPER through Chairman for discussing the issue of Dr. Nilanjan Roy in forthcoming BOG meeting at NIPER on 28th May 2012


I would also like to mention politely that a timely action from the Authority could have prevnted the vicious act officiating director to destroy career of a whistleblower honest scientist. The officiating director successfully destroyed my career by stopping active research, transferring student and instruments and stopping national and international funding.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Parikshit Bansal <> Date: Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Subject: Prayer to address in the forthcoming BOG meeting of 28th May, 2012, my formal complaint dated 18-7-2011 relating to misappropriation of 11th Five Year Plan Money


Kind Attention:
Dr. V.K.Katoch
Chairman, Board of Governors, NIPER

Dear Dr.Katoch,
I am addressing this email to you not only as a Facuty member of NIPER, but also as a responsible and deeply concerned citizen. Like Dr.Roy (email below) , I too am being victimized because of my complaint to you regarding corruption at NIPER.   

Even before the first meeting of the Board of Governors took place on 2nd August, 2011, I had made a formal complaint to you vide my letter dated 18th July, 2011 no. 392 regarding large scale misappropriation of 11th Five Year Plan Money by ex-Director of NIPER, Prof. P.Rama Rao and the present Officiating Director, Prof. K.K.Bhutani. Despite seriousness of the matter, the issue has not been discussed in the BOG till date and no inquiry set up to look into the charges by the BOG. 

In response to recent query in Rajya Sabha regarding action taken by Ministry relating to complaints on corruption at NIPER, the Hon'ble Minister has duly clarified on record that that the BOG is duly empowered to look into the matters of NIPER. Accordingly, I pray that my formal complaint made to you vide my letter dated 18-7-2011/392  relating to large scale misappropriation of 11th Five Year Plan Funds may be taken up in the forthcoming BOG meeting to be held at NIPER on 28th May, 2012. A copy of the complaint is being enclosed for necessary action as prayed. 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NEERAJ KUMAR <> Date: Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:22 PM

To: bog

Final copy (Advance copy is already sent to Chairman, BOG NIPER through Speed post#EP176663532IN; Delivered on 24.05.2012)
(No forwarding note was given by Officiating Director even after reminding him through e.mail as per NIPER Statutes clause#20)


4.     It is also pertinent to mention that BOG is extremely silent of the corrupt practices adopted by Officiating Director and due to the silence of BOG, Officiating Director along with his coterie victimized to the whistle blower/complainant by putting fictitious charges and autocracious/illegal decision to the faculties. All this happened due to silence of BOG in such a manner that I have also to approach to Hon’Ble High through CWP#2211 of 2012 to get the direction so that BOG through Chairman should listen to us as per provisions given in the NIPER statute clause_3.2.1(j).     

5. We as faculty are frustrated due to corrupt practices (Academic/financial) adopted by Officiating Director which are duly reported/complained to Honorable BOG more specifically to Chairman, BOG along with ministry (DoP) and all are taking place in legal matter, news papers (Print/electronic), and also in parliament through unstared questions. BUT BOG NIPER IS SIALENT WHY?????          

Friday, 25 May 2012

Nepotism in ad hoc appointment at NIPER

Dr V. M.  Katoch, Chairman BOG, NIPER
Secretary to Govt. of India,
Department of Health Research, Ramalingaswami Bhawan,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110029,


Ref: REGULARIZATION OF DR. JYOTI PALIWAL AS PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACEUTICS, WITHOUT ANY ADVERTISEMENT OR FORMATION OF ANY SELECTION COMMITTEE (in serious violation of NIPER statutes, constitutional provisions and also Govt. of India rules regarding fair selection procedures in Govt. Institutes)

Copy to: All BOG members for necessary action in the forthcoming BOG meeting to be held on 28.05.12

Dear Sir,

With due respect, I wish to place before you the following facts:

1. That in May, 2011 the current Officiating Director, Prof. K.K. Bhutani recruited Dr. Jyoti Paliwal as a Professor in Pharmaceutics, on ad-hoc basis.

2. Under the NIPER Statutes, Clause 4.4, Director can appoint a faculty on ad-hoc basis. However, as per NIPER Statutes, Clause 4.7  reproduced below:

 “An ad hoc appointment shall have to go through regular selection within one year against a normal vacancy in accordance with para 4.2 and 4.3 of the statutes of NIPER.”

Thus, regularization of a Professor appointed on ad-hoc basis will be illegal if faculty recruited does not go through a regular process of selection as per NIPER statutes and Govt. of India laws and rules, which are binding in matter of all recruitments in all govt. institutions including NIPER.

3. The regular selection process (as per  NIPER statutes and Govt. of India rules and constitution Art, 14 regarding equal opportunity)  involves:

-  Making an open advt. clearly mentioning the essential requirements for post advertised.
-  Short-listing of all candidates without any bias
- Interview of the short-listed candidates by a Selection Committee constituted as per clause 3.6 of NIPER statutes and approved by the NIPER Board of Governors
- Declaration of the result in a fair and transparent manner within a reasonable period of time

 Bypassing these will amount to a serious violation of Statutes.

In present case, I am an aggrieved party because regularization of Dr. Jyoti Paliwal as Professor (Pharmaceutics) without advertisement of the post, will result in denial of fair and equal opportunity to me to compete for the post. I am eligible to compete for the post of Professor (Pharmaceutics) as per NIPER statute clause 4.1.3 reproduced below:

“Professor: PhD with first class or equivalent grade at the preceding degree in the appropriate branch with a very good academic record throughout and at least 10 years of teaching/research/ Industrial experience with published work of high quality well recognized and established reputation of having made conspicuous seminal contribution to knowledge in pharmaceutical and allied areas” 

Apart from my documented contribution in pharmaceutics, a comparative of my academic credentials vis-a-vis that of Dr. J. Paliwal shows that I am very much eligible for competing to the post of Professor (Pharmaceutics). Citation indices of Dr. Neeraj Kumar and Dr, Jyoti Paliwal from Google Scholar, Internationally accepted indices of Scientific excellence, as on 22.05.2012

Neeraj Kumar
Jyoti Paliwal

Since 2007
Since 2007

Key to the terms used above: All:  It refers to total citations of the author since his /her first publication. Since 2007:Refers to only the citations of last 5 years of the author. h-index: is the largest number h such that h publications have at least h citations. i10-index: is the number of publications of the author with at least 10 citations.

In case the post is advertized and equal opportunity given to all eligible candidates, the most deserving and suitable candidate will be selected for the post of professor Pharmaceutics. It is relevant to mention here that from 01.01.2010 till date 22.05.12, the post of Professor in department of Pharmaceutics has not been advertised. The only advertisement for faculty recruitment is the rolling Advertisement for recruiting Asst/Assoc Professors only in various departments ADVT. NO. 12 & 20/2010 (copy enclosed). There is no mention at all in the advertisement for any vacancy for professor in any department. 

Due to the reasons above, regularization of appointment of Dr. Jyoti Paliwal as Professor in Pharmaceutics (without advertisement of normal vacancy of Professor in Pharmaceutics) by BOG, will amount to a serious violation of NIPER statutes and constitutional provision under article 14.

Post of Professor in Department of Pharmaceutics may please be advertized thus giving a fair opportunity to all deserving candidates and not to just one candidate i.e. Dr. Jyoti Paliwal. 


Neeraj Kumar, PhD

PS: This e.mail is being sent through my g.mail account as it was not passing through NIPER mail

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Corrupt IAS officer ordered inquiry based on anonymous letter

"In India we have a tendency to shoot the whistleblowerGen VK Singh: TOI 23rd May 2012. 

Exactly the same happened in NIPER. Despite of the clear guide line fron CVC how to deal with anonymous pseudonymous letters and Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS ordered inquiry against whistle blower Dr. Nilanjan Roy, Associate professor of NIPER. 

Though the undated anonymous letter written by NIPER staff complained about Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain, Member NIPER Board of Governors as well as Finance committee and officiating Director K. K. Bhutani, regarding funneling out huge sums of money only Nilanjan Roy is singled out by  Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS

In response to the anonymous letter NIPER then acting registrar  Dr. Harmeet Sing IRS  wrote the truth this committee is only recommendatory has no power to purchase anything.  

A Karan under secretary Department of Pharmaceutical wrote "the complain is anonymous no actionable points emerge case may be closed" 

Though the undated anonymous letter written by NIPER staff complained about Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain,  officiating Director K. K. Bhutani, Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS specifically wanted Nilanjan Roy to be investigated. 

Now the question is why?

Here is why, 

As a JS pharma Mr. Jha involved in disbursing money of NIPER and also served a CVO, Thus he was well aware of activities of Whistle blowers of NIPER Dr(s). Nilanjan Roy, Parikshit Bansal and Neeraj kumar and wanted to eliminate the roadblocks in money making corrupt practices of NIPER nexus.

Complain of Dr. Parikshit Bansal against Mr. Arun Jha, IAS 

16. That on 31st March 2011 a RTI quarry was send to to the CPIO, CVC seeking to know, whether CVC had send any letter to CVO DOP for conducting inquiry regarding diversion of funds under 11th plan or not? Copy of the letter enclosed as ANNEXURE P-13 (Page 39).

In response CPIO, CVC supplied copy of two letters dated 23.02.2010 and 11.05.2010 respectively in which clear cut directions had been given to the CVO Mr. Arun Jha for conducting inquiry as reproduced below,

“it is observed that the issue appears to be one of diversion of funds from one area to another. Deptt. may therefore take up the matter for auditing. In case any vigilance angle is indicated, same may be dealt with in accordance with prescribed rules ”
Copy of the letter is enclosed in ANNEXURE P-14 (Page 40-42).

17. That from the above it is clear that the CVO from DOP has submitted false and misleading information in response to RTI quarry. He submitted that no directions had been received from the CVC where as CVC had sent two letters to him for conducting inquiry and taking necessary action.

18. That the action of the CVO is in violation of Office order NO 33/5/2004 dated 17th May 2004 From CVC to all CVOs directing that,

“CVO must obtain all papers with respect to a complaint and investigation should be commenced immediately. The investigation report should be submitted to the commission within two weeks “

The order also directs that, CVO should ensure that no punitive action is taken against the whistleblower”. In this particular case CVO violated all the above directions as per office order of CVC. Copy of the office order is enclosed in ANNEXURE P-15 (Page 43).

In the view of above facts and supporting material provided herein, I appeal to you for the most stringent and exemplary action against Mr. Arun Jha, CVO, Department of Pharmaceuticals, for non-conduct of an enquiry as directed by CVC, violation of CVC Guide line and submission of false information in response to RTI. His actions have undermine the faith and trust reposed to by the common man in the office of the Central Vigilance Commission, the office of the ministry under which NIPER falls and also faith in an officer of elite service like the Indian Administrative Service.


Parikshit Bansal,

Forwarded By 

Director, NIPER

1. CentralVigilanceCommissioner,CentralVigilanceCommission,
Satarkata Bhawan, A Block GPO Complex, INA New Delhi-110023 

2. Chairman, Standing Committee on Chemical and Fertilizers LokSabha
Secretariat Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi 110001

3. Joint secretory Department of Pharmaceutical Arun Jha, IAS

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Cost overrun of construction projects, are the justifications correct?

What happened to cost overrun money?

1. No new lecture hall is build though cost overrun of 3 crore claimed???
2. Exorbitant cost of firefighting system and lift for boys hostel??
3. Swimming pool is still non functional after 16 months and cost over run of 17 lacs.
4. For shopping center no earth work is done.
5. Guest rom for community center ?? NIPER guest house and annex are unoccupied most of the time, 
6. Rooms upstairs of community center was the part of original plan.
7. Where is the additional Gate?  

Satya bichitro ei Desh (really Seleucus, what an amazing country is this!)