HC reserves verdict in IISER-Mohali case

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 12

Crisis in the Mohali-based premier research and academic institution, the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, on Thursday trudged towards resolution. Just about a fortnight after its Director launched litigation against its own Chairperson in an unheard-of turn of events over the functioning of the institute’s Registrar, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday reserved its order.

The Bench made it clear that the Board of Governors meeting scheduled to be held on Friday could discuss and decide agenda items fixed before it, except an item regarding revocation of the Registrar’s suspension till further orders.

The Director, in February, had placed under suspension the services of the Registrar, Dr P Bapaiah, as “disciplinary proceeding was contemplated”. The order was stayed on March 22 by the High Court, but the stay was vacated on June 1 with liberty to the appellate authority to decide the Registrar’s “appeal”, following which the Chairperson revoked the suspension. The Chairperson then constituted an independent scrutiny committee.

Appearing on behalf of the Chairperson and the Board of Governors, senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram told Justice Shekher Dhawan’s Bench that the high-powered committee, set up by the Chairperson after being authorised by the Board, had come out with its report on all “aspects of the matter relating to the suspension of the Registrar”.

Atma Ram said the committee headed by former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court Justice SS Sodhi with Punjab’s former Chief Secretary Rajan Kashyap as the vice-chairman and Registrar of an MHRD institute M Radhakrishnan as a member-secretary met between June 27 and July 5.

It heard the institute Director and the Registrar before preparing the report, which was to be considered by the Board in its meeting scheduled to be held on Friday. He also placed before the Bench the report in a sealed cover, which Justice Dhawan returned after perusal.

Atma Ram said the Director was not authorised by the board to move the High Court. Describing it as “body corporate”, Atma Ram asserted the petition was not maintainable unless authorised by the Board. He also argued that the filing of the petition on the Board’s behalf without a resolution amounted to misconduct.

Senior advocate RK Malik, on the other hand, submitted on the petitioner’s behalf that the Chairperson’s order revoking the suspension were to be ratified during the Board’s Friday meeting. He added the Board had empowered the Chairperson to set up an “unbiased committee” to find out “whether the allegations were right or wrong”. But the Chairperson asked the committee to look into myriad aspects, such as powers of the Director, because she was not interested in finding the truth.