Detailed judgment in VC appointment case: PHC rules Academic Search Committee didn’t act impartially

PESHAWAR: In its detailed judgement in the petition against the appointment of Prof Habib Ahmad as the vice-chancellor of Islamic College University, the Peshawar High Court ruled that the Academic Search Committee that made the selection didn’t conduct the search impartially and reasonably.

The division bench of Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth and Justice Ms Musarrat Hilali had set aside the notification of appointment of the vice-chancellor and ordered the re-advertisement of the post.

The petition was filed by Prof Yaseen Iqbal, chairman of the Department of Physics, University of Peshawar. He too was a candidate for vice-chancellor and had challenged Prof Habib Ahmad’s appointment. Prof Yaseen Iqbal pleaded his own case after getting disappointed with the lawyers who were working as his legal counsels.

The Peshawar High Court in its judgement said it was a mystery how the Academic Search Committee covered up the two third divisions obtained by the vice-chancellor during his period of education and still appointed him to this position.

The Academic Search Committee was headed by Dr Attaur Rahman, a former federal minister who also served as chairman of the Higher Education Commission. The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI)-led government had made him head of the Academic Search Committee in good faith in the hope that all selections of vice-chancellors of public sector universities would be made on merit. However, things turned out differently and the Peshawar High Court has used some tough words about the Academic Search Committee and blamed it for failing to act impartially and reasonably in the selection of Islamia College University vice-chancellor.

Some of the important observations made by the judges in their detailed judgement are listed below. On page 6, the court says “there is no selection /recommendation criteria prescribed for the said Academic Search Committee” obviously for the selection/recommendation of the most important academic-cum-administrative position for the higher education institutions but there are strict criteria for admission to the first year in the same institution?

On the same page the last sentence reads: “the Academic Search Committee had prescribed its own criteria for shortlisting the three candidates for recommending to the provincial government for rendering advice to the Chancellor/Governor to make final orders.”

On page 8, the court says “Neither with the comments nor during the arguments any document was produced, showing that what criteria was adopted or what were the standards for selecting the candidates for the post of vice-chancellor.”

On page 10, the court clearly says “nothing is on record to show that what prompted the Academic Search Committee to cover up the deficiencies of academic record/difference and on what grounds.”On page 11, the court refers to several documents mentioning the ineligibility of 3rd divisioners for administrative and academic positions. It noted that the 3rd division has been abolished by the University of Peshawar and candidates with 3rd division are ousted from competition. It said admission is not granted on the basis of 3rd division in majority of standard educational institutions.

On page 12, the court says that “if the lecturer with 3rd division isn’t considered for appointment then how can be the vice-chancellor and that too with two 3rd divisions.”

On the same page, the court mentions that “the Governor/Chancellor twice returned the summary as the selectee was having two 3rd divisions, .... and finally for the third time due to constitutional requirements gave the approval.”

Why are we having such flaws in our constitution which forces the governor to ignore the merit?

On the same page 12-13, the court says “How two 3rd divisions of the selectee/respondent No. 4 were covered up by the Academic Search Committee is a mystery because nothing is on record showing that how quantification was done.” The court further says “The designated authority has not discharged its functions the way they were required to do so. Such action of the authority has no sanctity to sustain.”

On page 13, the court clearly says “surely there is element of non- transparency ......... no objective evaluation and it’s the personal feelings of the committee.”

On page 14, the court says “on academic scoring/quantification of the highest scorer is left out, even for the purpose of three recommendees. The observations of the worthy Chancellor/Governor were also not acknowledged in its true sense and spirit.”

On page 14, the court says “Academic Search Committee has not conducted the search impartially and reasonably.”

The final para says “In view of the above this writ petition is allowed, the appointment notification dated 29th July 2016 of respondent No. 4 for a period of three years, with immediate effect, is set aside. The post of Vice Chancellor of Islamia College Peshawar is deemed to be lying vacant for filling up of the post, after advertisement and due process of law.”