LAHORE: The Punjab governor/chancellor has asked the vice chancellor of the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (UAF), to seek an explanation from the university’s legal adviser over the position he took before the Lahore High Court (LHC) on the chancellor’s jurisdiction.
In a letter issued on Nov 2, the governor’s secretariat said it had been ‘observed with concern’ that the legal adviser’s stance before the courts appeared to question thestatutory jurisdiction of the governor, who is also the chancellor and its consistency with the university’s earlier position.
The letter cited an LHC order of Oct 6 in a constitutional petition titled ‘Muzaffar Hussain Salik versus Province of Punjab.
The petitioner sought implementation of a July 24, 2026, order passed by the chancellor.
According to the LHC order, the university’s counsel, Shahzad Shaukat, who appeared on watching brief, contended that the jurisdiction exercised by the chancellor did not vest in him under the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad Act, 1973.
He sought time to file a reply, and the courtdirected that the needful be done within two weeks before the petition is relisted.
The governor’s letter said the contention regarding the legal position adopted on behalf of the university raised ‘serious concerns’, particularly in view of an April 7 LHC order in another petition (No.
20546/2026), Section 11-A of the 1973 Act, and the Chancellor’s July 24 order.
The letter also noted that the vice chancellor himself, in a speaking order, had referred the petitioner’s matter to the chancellor for a decision as the competent authority.
The legal adviser’s subsequent stance, questioning the jurisdiction of thevery authority to which the university had referred the matter, ‘warrants careful examination and an appropriate explanation,’ it said.
The vice chancellor has been asked to obtain the legal adviser’s explanation, specifically on the legal basis, circumstances and justification for the position taken before the LHC.
It said a report, along with the explanation and relevant record, is to be submitted to the secretariat for the governor’s perusal.
A copy of the letter has also been sent to the provincial secretary of the agriculture department.
When contacted, Advocate Shahzad Shaukat told Dawn that he had notyet received any letter from the VC seeking an explanation. Defending his stance, he said an appropriate response would be furnished after receiving the letter.
‘A legal adviser of an institution is duty bound to assist the courts in accordance with the Constitution and the law. No one can dictate a lawyer or interfere in his professional work,’ he maintained.
Shaukat, a former advocate general of Punjab, said he had informed the court about the legalposition on the chancellor’s jurisdiction.
He insisted that the chancellor had no jurisdiction over the subject matter pending before the court.