This post is co-authored with Swaraj.
Three months after scrapping the preliminary exams for the recruitment of patent and designs examiners, the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has re-notified the preliminary exams to be conducted on December 21. Previously, the exams were canceled just a day after they were conducted, owing to unspecified “irregularities/ technical reasons”.
Apart from the date, this time the organizers of the exams have been changed as well, with the National Testing Agency taking over the reins of conducting the recruitment from the Quality Council of India (QCI). Created in 2017, the National Testing Agency (NTA), registered under the Societies Registration Act, has been described as an autonomous testing organization that conducts entrance examinations for admissions and fellowships to different higher education institutions.. One of the objectives of the organization is to “conduct efficient, transparent and international standards tests in order to assess the competency of candidates for admission, and recruitment purposes.”
While it is great to see transparency in conducting recruitments as one of the core objectives of the institution, separate or regardless of the NTA, the general trajectory of how these processes have happened in the past, and how they may happen in the future, is quite unclear. The one-page public notice, linked above, barely mentions anything about the role of the NTA in the whole process and simply states that the Agency has been “entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the recruitment”. For comparison, in the previous instance when QCI was in charge, it was stated that success in the examination will confer no right of appointment unless QCI is satisfied that the candidate is suitable in all respects (!) for appointment to the post. So does this mean that like the QCI previously, the NTA will also supersede the authority of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) in the process of recruiting its officers? Or is it that this time the entity’s role is (only) to facilitate the recruitment process, with the ultimate say laying in the hands of DPIIT or CGPDTM.
Also, it needs to be stated in the interests of transparency and accountability of what has already happened – handing over the recruitment process to a new agency does not whitewash the questions of what these “irregularities/ technical reasons” were that led to the cancellation of the exams. Who was the competent authority that directed the cancellation of the exams? And though it is no longer in charge, why was QCI imbibed with the responsibility to appoint officers of the Indian Patent Office in the first place, and then why was there a change made?
Relevant to this, it is interesting to note that the QCI was established from a 50% partial seed funding by FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM (see S. 1) and these three industry bodies play key role in the appointment of the top office bearers- Chairperson of the QCI, Chairpersons of the different Boards under the QCI, and Secretary General of the QCI, by nominating the names of the candidates (see S. 2.1 – 2.4)) from which the selection is made. The Indian Patent Office safeguards the Indian patent regime against meritless/ bad patents whereas the QCI seemingly has nothing to do with innovation or the patent regime (see here for the MoA and here for its Service and Finance Manual). Do any of our readers have more insight on if they are/were connected to the IP regime? All these questions do make one wonder if there can’t be more transparency and accountability in this whole process. Hopefully, the position on these issues will be clarified in the future and these questions will not be brushed under the carpet.
The whole commotion about the appointment of patent examiners isn’t new. Originally, the recruitment of these officers was done after consulting with the UPSC under Article 320 (3) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. However, from July 6, 1999, UPSC’s role in these recruitments was exempted under Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958 (see here at pg. 133 for the annual report stating this). But the Patent Office still relied on UPSC along with Educational Consultants India Ltd. (a PSU under the Ministry of Education) for recruitment of Examiners till 2010 (see here). After this, the recruitment was outsourced to different bodies like CSIR (also see here pg. 49 onwards), National Productivity Council (see here) or the officers were recruited temporarily/ on deputation (for instance see here).
All of this does make one wonder about the reasons for these constant changes and if any lessons have been learnt along the way. If not then hopefully with this whole ordeal about canceling the exams and reconducting them now with NTA will lead to a more solid/ clear path for recruitment in the future.