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

No comments:

Post a Comment