Increase font size Decrease font size Reset font size

The curious case of PUCIT principal`s appointment

By Mansoor Malik 2014-11-14
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has directed the Punjab University vice chancellor to examine the appointment of Prof Dr Mansoor Sarwar as professor as well as principal of PU College of Information Technology (PUCIT) since 2010.

Prof Sarwar`s `appointments` have been challenged for being in violation of eligibility criteria and the university calendar.

Justice Faisal Zaman Khan disposed of the petition on Oct 27, 2014 directing the vice chancellor, who is also chairman of the Syndicate, to complete the inquiry after according an opportunity of personal hearing to all the parties before the Syndicate and report within three months.

Following the appointment of Mr Sarwar as professor as well as principal on Dec 6, 2010, PU Geology Department`sProf Dr Nasir Ahmed, who is also president of teachers` Academic Group in the university, had challenged both the appointments, alleging that they were made illegally.

The complainant had claimed that Prof Sarwar had applied for the post of professor, advertised on Nov 22, 2007, without eligibility of having at least two publications in HEC/PEC recognised journals of international repute to his credit by the calendar year 2007.

However, he was selected by the university`s Selection Board.

In the meantime, the PU also advertised the post of PUCIT principal on Aug 24, 2010, despite the fact that this post did not exist in the university budget.

Prof Sarwar also applied for the post and was selected by a subsequent Selection Board.

Interestingly, Prof Sarwar gave joining for both independently advertised posts (professor as well as principal) separately on Dec 6, 2010. It may be men-tioned that his joining for professor`s post had also become time-barred and ambiguous as he was supposed to join within a month after his selection on May 27, 2010.

More interestingly, the university administration accepted the joining reports and allowed him to work against both posts.

It is learnt that the PU administration primarily could not advertise the post of a constituent college principal as per Statute 3 of the Schedule to the PU Act 1973. The clause 2 of this statute reads: `The chairman of a teaching department and the director of an institute shall be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendations of the vice chancellor from amongst the three senior most professors of the department for a period of three years and shall be eligible for re-appointment It is also learnt the PU administration had inquired into the `appointments` following a complaint lodged byChemistry Department`s Prof Dr Zaid Mahmood and resolved that Prof Sarwar`s appointment as professor was against rules. The committee also directed that his name should be removed from the electoral role for the university Syndicate elections. Still, Prof Sarwar continued serving as professor and enjoyed all the perks and privileges.

When contacted, Prof Sarwar refuted the allegation of professorship eligibility criteria, saying that he possessed more than 12 research publications at the time of applying for the post. He, however, said that he did not remember that he had given joining against both posts of principal and professor on the same day.

He asserted the PUCIT principal was a budgeted post at the time of advertisement. He said he was holding the post of principalship with a lien of retaining the rank of the professor and reverting back to professorship in the college. He also said his appointment as college principaluntil retirement was confirmed by the Syndicate.

About removal of his name from university`s professors`list, Prof Sarwar said that he had written a letter to the registrar against the decision of the inquiry committee and informed that he could approach a court. However, he said, he did not go to court in the best interest of the university because Syndicate elections were round the corner.

Regarding drawing professor`s tenure track post increments, he admitted that he continued drawing increments equal to that of tenure tracl< professor during the past years following approval by the Syndicate. Now, he said, his increments did not match those of fered in the tenure track system.

When contacted, PU spokesman confirmed that there were serious technical issues in Prof Sarwar`s appointments and the varsity administration would expeditiously decide the matter on merit within the stipulated time.