Ousted official says he was victimised for exposing corruption

PESHAWAR: The ousted managing director of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Elementary and Secondary Education Foundation (ESEF) has moved the Peshawar High Court (PHC) claiming he was made a scapegoat for exposing mismanagement and corruption in the department.

Zulfiqar Ahmad, who was sacked as managing director ESEF by the government, filed an application in the PHC through his lawyer Ali Gohar Durrani seeking to be made party in the suo motu notice of the court regarding ‘ghost schools’ and ‘ghost students’ in the province. A division bench headed by Justice Qaiser Rashid Khan during the previous hearing had directed the chief minister’s adviser on elementary and secondary education to submit a detailed report on the issue of alleged presence of ‘ghost schools’ and ‘ghost students’ under a government scheme launched by ESEF.

In the application, Zulfiqar Ahmad submitted before the bench that the advisor to chief minister on elementary and secondary education Ziaullah Bangash informed the court about different matters in the previous hearing, especially in terms of reference of the applicant (Zulfiqar Ahmad) and levelled allegations against him. “The allegations by the advisor alongside observations of the bench have been made part of the order sheet passed on April 17. The accusations by the advisor and observations of the court regarding the applicant seriously prejudice his rights and thus seeking impleadment in the case as respondent should not only respond to the allegation of the advisor, but also lay before the court the record on the subject matter as to how the applicant has been made a scapegoat and a victim of the foul play of the government,” the application stated. He said that he wanted to inform the court as to how the Elementary and Secondary Education (the department under the watchful eye of the worthy advisor to the chief minister on education) in the comments filed in writ petition No-1360-P/2018 titled Fazal Naeem versus government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others, defended the applicant and his position as managing director just a few months ago.

The applicant claimed that he was sacked as managing director by the advisor due to the fact that he exposed corruption in the department. The two-member bench comprising Justice Qaiser Rashid Khan and Justice Lal Jan Khattak after preliminary hearing made the ousted managing director ESEF a respondent party in the case.

During previous hearing, chief minister’s adviser Ziaullah Bangash appeared on a court notice and submitted that concrete steps should be taken for enrolment of out-of-school children. The court had taken suo motu notice after appearance of certain news items alleging that there were an alarming number of ghost students as well as ghost schools in different districts of the province. It was reported that under the Iqra Farogh-i-Taleem Voucher Scheme (IFTVS), the provincial government had allegedly been funding ghost schools and students without proper audit.

The adviser had informed the court that the provincial government was paying attention to the education sector and had started special campaign for enrolment of the out-of-school children. He stated that the responsibility of unearthing the ghost schools was assigned to the then managing director of ESEF, but his performance was not up to the mark. Justice Qaiser Rasheed then inquired about the qualification and salary of the managing director. The secretary of elementary and secondary education, Arshad Khan, said the managing director was a graduate and was drawing Rs500,000 salary per month. The bench expressed astonishment as to how a graduate was appointed against such an important post and why he was given such a high salary. The bench observed that it was the incompetence of the government to appoint a graduate on this post. Justice Qaiser Rasheed directed the adviser and secretary education that the campaign launched for enrolment of out-of-school-children should not be cosmetic and should yield positive results. He sought report about students’ enrolment at the next hearing of the case.