The DIPP recently replied to my RTI application asking for information pertaining to the appointment of Mr. D.P.S. Parmar as the Technical Member (Patents) IPAB. The Technical Member is supposed to sit along with a Judicial Member to adjudicate patent revocations and also appeals against the Controller. The previous person to hold this post was Mr. Chandrashekaran, who was earlier the Controller General of Patents.
We can now confirm the following 8 persons applied for the post:
(i) Mr. D.P.S. Parmar (Application available over here);
(ii) Dr. K.S. Kardam (Application available over here);
(iii) Mr. Rengaswamy (Application available over here);
(iv) Ms. Punithavathi (Application available over here);
(v) Mr. B.P.Singh (Application available over here);
(vi) Mr. R. Srinivas (Application available over here);
(vii) Mr. S.P.Arora (Application available over here);
(viii) Mr. P.C. Chakraborti (Application available over here);
Of the above 8 applications, Mr. Arora was the only practitioner applying for the post. The remaining 7 were controllers at the patent office. Mr. P.C. Chakraborti, who was appointed as the ad-hoc technical member to the IPAB to hear the Novartis case, had already retired as a Controller.
Of the 7 Controllers, the age factor seems to have played a major role in the selection process because the retirement age for Technical Members (Patents) is 62 years and the Cabinet Committee on Appointments is quite particular on appointing only those persons who can serve the entire term of 5 years.
The age of the applicants was as follows: (i) Mr. Parmar – 56 years, (ii) Dr. K.S.Kardam – 52 years (iii) Mr. Rengaswamy – 59 years, (iv) Ms. Punithavathi – 54 years (v) Mr. R. Srinivas – 46 years (vi) Mr. B.P. Singh – 52 years (vii) Mr. S.P. Arora – 60 years (viii) Mr. P.C. Chakraborti – 62 years.
Of these eight applicants – Mr. Chakraborti was automatically disqualified because he was already 62 years of age. Similarly Mr. S.P. Arora would also have been disqualified because he was 60 years of age and would have had only 2 years of service left if he was appointed. Of the remaining six applicants, Mr. Parmar was the senior-most Controller with exactly 5 years of service left and would therefore be a natural choice for appointment of the IPAB. After all the Selection Committee, the minutes of which are available over here, which appointed Mr. Parmar consisted of 2 bureaucrats + Acting Chairperson of IPAB + D-G (CSIR) and the normally tendency at least amongst the bureaucrats would have been to appoint the senior-most controller, as this is the least controversial route. This is not to say that Mr. Parmar is not otherwise qualified for the post but it does explain one of the important reasons for his appointment. It is difficult to make any objective determination of Mr. Parmar’s appointment because of the very faulty nature of the job application designed by the DIPP for the post.
The Department appears to have used the same application as used for the post of Technical Member (Trademarks). (See Items 11 & 12 of this application) Ideally any such applications for the Technical Member (Patents) should concentrate on the experience of the Controller in rendering decisions in opposition proceedings, granting/rejecting patents. For some reason the application does not specifically ask for any such information. As a result there is a huge difference in the kind of information submitted by each applicant. Hopefully the DIPP will be more careful the next time around.
Prashant Reddy has done a marvellous job by writing this article. Wonderfully composed when the article says:
‘This is not to say that Mr. Parmar is not otherwise qualified for the post but it does explain one of the important reasons for his appointment. It is difficult to make any objective determination of Mr. Parmar’s appointment because of the very faulty nature of the job application designed by the DIPP for the post.’
Based upon the maladministration of the patent, designs and trade mark office anyone can easily understand what is the underlying fact behind the selection by the worthless civil servants who least apply their brains to select the worst tech-savvy guy amongst the applicants. I can bet that the condition of technology (should I just say ‘science’ as the selected guy has a degree in science in some old days?) in IPAB would be worst if candidates are selected just based upon seniority only. There are many experts in engineering, technology and science in India who has knowledge in IPR. IPAB should target them to include in the system rather than the existing officers of the patent office.
Hi. See below an order, which highlights the perils of granting exparte injunction in a design matter. The plaintiff had to agree on suspension of the injunction and inspection of the subject matter (after securing injunction).
O R D E R
12.12.2011
CS(OS) 2934/2011 and IA.No.19122/2011(u/O.39 R.4 CPC)
and IA.No.18812/2011 (u/O.39 Rs-1 and 2 CPC)
Counsel for the parties submit that parties have arrived at a
workable interim arrangement by which it is agreed that : (i) the interim
order dated 25.11.2011 shall stand suspended, till further orders; and
(ii) the defendants will permit the engineers of the plaintiff to inspect
the product in question at a time, date and place to be mutually agreed
upon between the parties within ten days from today. Ordered
accordingly.
Plaintiff will file reply to the application
[IA.No.19122/2011(u/O.39 R.4 CPC)] and the pleadings shall be completed
before the next date of hearing.
List on 21.02.2012.
G.S.SISTANI,J
What Anon @ 12:12 AM has said is very valid. The post of technical member in IPAB is now turning into a pre-retirement resort for Patent officers. The attraction here is that they can extend their service for 2 more years. The recruitment rules have to be changed in such a manner as to exclude IPO officers from applying for the post.
Dear Prashant.
while going thru your post at para no 2 you said that ACC appoints only such persons, who can serve the entire term of 5 years, if that so, then Why Mr. V Ravi has been selected, please explain me about it and to other readers too.
1)Mr. V Ravi is going to have only tenure of one year and 10 months as Member Technical in IPAB, as he is already retired from active service on 30th November 2011.
2)Like wise Mr. DPS Parmar he has passed few orders till date and there are many readers who had already wrote about it.
3)Why the appointment of Mr. Ravi has been kept in abeyance for many months, as one of other reader Mr. Atul Bandhu had wrote comments and pointed about about favoristism is being played BY DIPP In his appointment as member Technical in your recent post with headingThe ‘missing files’ at the IPO: Time for a CAG audit?
Though Mr.Bandhu had requested you in his post that to publish documents which he had sent you, why you have chose not to published said documents so far. why is there a delay from your side.
after reading your this blog post, it looks that you actually have a soft corner for MR. V. Ravi as I feel and able to comprehend with little knowledge I have or have gathered it from your earlier published reports as well as recent post in which you have been brought the question to selection and the appointment of other Technical member Mr. DPS Parmar in IPAB to fore front in your blog post for reader like us but why you have not question the appointment in the case of Mr. V Ravi, who is also similarly placed and appointed likewise Mr. Parmar/ Mr. Ravi has also been handling only administrative work related to Ministry and its officials, providing cars for travel etc. etc.
so why you have not raised question on his appointment, as Mr Atul bandhu rightly said in his comments why his appointment has been kept in abeyance or vacant since May 2011 ,Why DIPP failed to find any person better than Mr. V Ravi under whose carpet 44404 files went missing without any trace, why you have signaled out Mr. DPS Parmar and why you did not question the abeyance period extended by DIPP without any cause only just to accomadate him in IPAB after his retirement lapse of more then seven months.
As in his service tenure DIPP could not appoint him due to missing file episode and found a novel way of appointing him after his retirement, I think his services are required in WIPO who can better use his service in organizing IP day in Geneva,
Please do not be selective in airing your views and always raise issue without any fear and favour
Dear Anon,
I’m not sure about what exactly is going on with Mr. Ravi and I think it would be irresponsible on my part to question his appointment without any concrete information in my hand.
With regards Mr. Bandhu documents, they contain some potentially damaging information and I’m not going to publish it until I can verify each and every allegation by myself. As of today I do not have the resources to carry out such an investigation. When I get the time to verify these allegations I will publish it.
If you would like to read the documents you can contact Mr. Bandhu for a copy of the same.
Warm Regards,
Prashant
while going thru internet I have found the documents in question, tghe documents shows that indeed Mr. Ravi allowed the junior official to resume service revoking his suspension so the link is produced herein below for you and your all readers
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dbCadJ
Prashant,
As you have pasted the minutes document of the selection committee in your blog post, if you see little minutely or carefully the minutes of the Selection Committee you will find the hand written comments written by Mr. Brahmchari above his signatures : which is written as under:
“I have gone through the records and concur with the reccommadation of the Committee”
It means that Prof. Samir K Brahmchari has not attended the said interview and he has written his comments in absentia as he has not attended the said interview and as he was specially em-paneled or inducted as member in the selection committee as technical member to weigh technical competence of the candidates and as per service law.
if one of the member do not attend or conduct or present in the interview than interview result or subsequent selection / appointment of the said committee gets vitiated and I am aware of many more things which has happened in this interview, which i do not want to discuss in this forum and I forcefully say that I have many documents RTI replies, officials notes of DIPP in my hand, which have been collected by me from my common and If i bring these documents to your forum I certain that all recent appointments made in IPAB by DIPP will be go or quashed by the court of law.
As I know you have filed the writ in Chennai why don’t you bring this issue before this Hon’ble court about the bungling carried out by DIPP in the appointment of the Technical member of IPAB
If you are interested in having such documents you may contact me on my gmail address, I may provide the same to you with one condition that you will publish the same in your blog
@ Anon (7:51 PM) – Good post, I hadn’t read that noting earlier.
The proceedings before the Madras High Court are already going at snails pace. Besides that writ is against the IPAB as a whole and I don’t think individual issues such as this should be brought within its purview.
Thank you however for pointing this out.
Best,
Prashant
Dear Prashant,
you have responded to my reply by addressing me anon but i have invited your attention under my name, secondly i have come to know that some advocate / IP attorney Sanjeev Chaswal from Delhi High Court had filed some petition in Delhi High Court against his cancellation of appointment as Member Technical in IPAB, as I am not able to get information regarding that case but this much is definite that DHC advocate has filed one Civil writ against DIPP
Dear Prashant,
Please refer to my above posting I spoke to some service lawyer he is also agreed to my point of view that if any of the member of selection committee is not present in the interview than the such interview gets vitiated that too particularly in this case he was inducted specially as technical expert to adjudge the technical competence in respect of patent and knowledge of the candidates in the said interview if in that case he is not present in that called interview than in such interview it is a vitiated interview but in that case another special thing has happened that after absenting from the interview he has signed the selection committee minutes in absentia which is essentially more illegal than the first case of mere absence.
so the selection of the Technical member patent and trademark is illegal under the eyes of law and the appointments of both member can be quashed on this sole ground and even the joined patent member appointment is illegal hence can be removed from his post.
Sorry about that IP-Vocal. I didn’t see your name.
You’ve made some excellent points. Would you like to do a guest post for us on this point? If so please do email me at preddy85[@]gmail.com. We can keep it anonymous.
Warm Regards,
Prashant
Do you know that even after such a hullabaloo and the exposures of V. Ravi, he is joining IPAB as technical member in January, 2012?
I had the occasion to read the documents on the internet at following site https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/dbCadJ
I come to conclusion that Mr. V. Ravi should not take over as Technical Member IPAB. That is not the only reason with respect to the documents, but ask me how many judicial orders (in opposition/rectification matters) he has passed in his life time. He may have been helpful in drafting the Trade Marks Act/Rules, but then most work done by him was copy pasting of old Act Andover looking various controversial Rules like more particularly with respect to the supplying of copies of exhibits to the opposite party (Rule 54) and filing of original exhibits. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
IP Vocal,
I have been able to find out the WP(C) No as 6299 of 2011. In fact the name of the advocate who has filed the writ is Sanjeev Kumar Chawswal. It was fixed on 20th Dec., 2011 and is now posted for 2nd Feb., 2012. Any appointment of Mr. V. Ravi would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
On another note there is also a writ pending for the appointment of a Technical Member (Trade Marks) IPAB. There were two posts vacant. One has been recently appointed and the other vacancy has been made subject to the outcome of the said writ petition.
Dear Kapil Wadhwa,
Would you please inform the readers the details about the appointment of Technical Member IPAB (Trade Marks). So far as I know that only one appointment is being made and that is of Mr. V. Ravi which is subject to the outcome of the writ petition filed by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Chawal.
Dear Prashant,
Firstly sorry for responding late to your response. As per your advice I am working on to collect startling facts and RTI response papers and working on its detail to write on the guest post to be published in your spicyyip blog and the same i will submit very soon i.e. probably with in this week, this post will prove beyond doubt that the DIPP officers specially former Joint Secretary Mr. V. Bhaskar has been playing his shots in selecting the officers to whom he wanted, irrespective of their caliber and rejecting the candidatures of all other IP advocates till date one way or other. Only exception to earlier two appointments which DIPP has made so far among advocates, which DIPP has done one post under political compulsion of a cabinate Minister and other appointment, promoted to other post due to being related to the former judge and has worked in the forum .
I am have manged to obtained the order from delhi High Court website in the case WPC 6299/2011 passed by the Hon.ble Mr. Justice Siddarth Mridul judge of Delhi High Court the order of the high court is as under
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 6299/2011 and CM 12662/2011
SANJEEV KUMAR CHASWAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. N.S.Bajwa and Mr. Badar Mahmood, Advocates.
versus
UOI ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
O R D E R
20.12.2011
At request of Counsel for the Respondent the matter is adjourned.
It is made clear that any appointment made by the Respondent in the meantime shall be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition.
List on 2nd February, 2012.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
DECEMBER 20, 2011
Dear IP Vocal,
Thank you for pointing us to this order. Would it be possible to get a copy of the actual WP from the Delhi HC Registry?
Cheers,
Prashant
Dear Mr. Anonymous Sir,
It was indeed Mr. V. Ravi who was appointed. Im told his appointment was effective from 19th December 2011. Therefore, the High Court Order of 20.12.2011 will apply to the second vacancy as the order says “any appointment made by the Respondent in the meantime “.
Regards,
Kapil Wadhwa
Dear Prashant,
I am trying to get writ and other documents, which i will sent it across to you for publication, as Mr. Kapil comment, I little differ with him though Mr. Ravi appointment was cleared by DOPT in the month of early May 2011 but was not allowed to join due to missing files episode.
So far as my view is concerned I feel probably DOPT must have cleared its order after having seeing the orders of Delhi High Court to save them from HC order DIPP must have manipulated a date prior to the HC order, so even after having orders the said person has not join the bench as of now the appointment of RAVi will be subject to this writ as he will be joining the bench after passing the orders and in these jobs the date of joining is paramount no the issuance of the letter.
As I have already told you in my comments made earlier that I am trying to lay my hands on the petition and RTT queries, the replies of the DIPP are mind boggling and so much of bungling has been done in the interview if any one takes or brings the said DIPP bungling before the court , I am sure the court will pass the orders of removal of even of a sitting member, leave apart Mr. Ravi who is yet to join.
Is it not advisable to take technical member from outside the patent office to avoid conflict of interest. There are highly qualified candidates with doctorates and also qualification in Intellectual Property Law. Such people should be targeted to avoid influence of previous work on the future decisions and also to introduce new brains into the system.
Well, after all this hullabaloo, Mr. V. Ravi has joined as Technical Member of IPAB and is sitting with Vice Chairman during the hearings to be held from 9th January, 2012 to 13th January, 2012. The cause list is appearing on the website of IPAB.