New Delhi: Amid a controversy over the unauthorised granting of intellectual property rights (IPR), a petition before the Delhi High Court has now challenged the appointment of the top man of the central government body that approves such rights.
Filed by the All India Patent Officer’s Welfare Association (AIPOWA), the petition has claimed that the appointment of Unnat P. Pandit as the head of The Office of The Controller General, Patents, Designs and Trade Mark (CGPDTM) was arbitrary and in contravention of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) advertisement for the post.
The petition against Pandit’s appointment has come at a time when his move to outsource the grant of patents and trademarks to contractual employees is under scrutiny. A legal opinion by the Union law ministry and a central government law officer recently held more than three lakh patents/trademarks granted by the CGPDTM office as invalid since “outsourced employees” approved them.
Moreover, in July this year, a Union Commerce and Industry Ministry-constituted committee indicted Pandit for alleged administrative lapses in purchasing 1,200 ‘all-in-one’ personal computers for offices at an inflated cost of Rs 9,99,75,600.
Now, the AIPOWA, which consists of 600 Group A service officers, working as quasi-judicial officers in the patent offices in Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai, has said in its petition before the HC that Pandit lacked the requisite experience to be the CGPDTM Controller General. Moreover, he did not possess annual confidential reports (ACRs) from the last five years as required under the terms of the DoPT letter issued in June 2020 to fill the post, the petitioner association added.
The DoPT letter, which mandated the appointment of the CGPDTM Controller General on deputation, required the successful candidate to have ACRs from the last five years of service.
According to the AIPOWA petition, Pandit’s experience before joining the CGPDTM did not count as the qualifying service for the post. Pandit had been working at the Jawaharlal Nehru University for 22 months—which made him ineligible for being appointed on deputation under the DoPT norms—the AIPOWA said. With a PhD and MSc in Chemistry, Pandit also worked in the Atal Innovation Mission. Moreover, he had served as officer on special duty (OSD) to the commerce and industry minister.
Asking the HC to quash Pandit’s appointment, the AIPOWA also questioned the five-year service tenure, which, the petitioner association said, stands in contravention of the 2010 DoPT office memorandum, which limits appointments on deputation to three years.
A bench led by Chief Justice of Delhi HC Manmohan will likely hear the matter on 27 August.
When contacted by ThePrint, Pandit’s lawyer declined to comment as the matter is sub-judice.
Also Read: How Supreme Court’s process of designating senior advocates changed in last 7 yrs & what it is now
Events leading up to Pandit’s appointment
As the administrative head of CGPDTM, the controller general performs statutory functions under the Patents Act, Trademarks Act, Copyrights Act, and Geographical Indications Act. It’s a key post in the field of intellectual property rights that touches upon the lives of people at large.
The officers, who are a part of the petitioner association, are responsible for performing a quasi-judicial role by holding hearings and writing orders to grant intellectual property rights to applicants. The AIPOWA first sent a representation in the matter of Pandit’s appointment to the central commerce ministry, and when it did not receive a response, moved the HC.
According to the petition, the post of the controller general has been filled on deputation under the central staffing scheme since the withdrawal of the CGPDTM recruitment rules of 2001. The petition has also said that despite a DoPT mandate to frame recruitment rules for posts extending to one year or more, the rules for appointment to the post of the controller general are not final yet.
Detailing the sequence of events leading up to Pandit’s appointment, the petition has submitted that the DoPT, in November 2020, circulated letters or advertisements with government departments, asking eligible officers to apply for the controller general post, which had fallen vacant the same month.
The advertisement mandated that eligible candidates provide ACRs for the last five years of service and, in addition, meet the prescribed educational qualification for the post.
In April 2021, however, the DoPT conveyed its approval to fill the vacancy through a search committee procedure, subject to the conditions of its 2007 office memorandum—which makes it compulsory to publicise the vacant post widely through an open advertisement.
Meanwhile, the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) received applications from those who responded to the DoPT’s November letter or advertisement, circulated among government officers.
However, on 7 September 2021, the DPIIT composed a four-member search committee in compliance with the DoPT’s April communication in its bid to appoint the controller general. The DoPT approved this search committee and reiterated its 2007 office memorandum on giving wide publicity to the vacant post.
The search committee held its first meeting on 15 September 2021, when it agreed to issue an open advertisement within 15 days to seek applications from eligible candidates. The prepared draft advertisement specified that the applicant should have more than 10 years of experience in IPR issues and, at the same time, should also hold a post-graduate degree in law, science, or engineering.
Instead of publicising this advertisement, the chairman of the search committee—secretary DPIIT—dissolved the committee on 15 September itself and set up a fresh one, replacing two external members.
Even though the DoPT cleared the new committee on 16 September, it did so subject to the DPIIT complying with its 2007 office memorandum on advertising the post.
However, on 17 September 2021, when the new search committee held its meeting, it did not decide on circulating the advertisement. Instead, it scrutinised the 17 applications received after the DoPT’s November 2020 letter inviting applications for the CGPDTM controller general post. The committee then rejected all 17 applications and suggested six names from its side—one of the names was that of Pandit.
The committee met for the second time on 23 September 2021 and shortlisted three candidates for consideration by the competent authority—the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). In February 2022, the ACC approved Pandit’s appointment to the post of CGPDTM on deputation for five years.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)