PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has issued notices to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government and other respondents, seeking their response to a plea that has challenged the recent appointment of the vice-chancellor of Khyber Medical University, Peshawar.

A bench consisting of Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Babar Sattar issued the order after preliminary hearing of a petition jointly filed by two senior academicians, seeking declaration of the court that the notification of appointment of Prof Abdul JalilKhan as vice-chancellor of KMU on Oct 4, 2026, was without lawful authority.

The bench stated that the appointment was in violation of an earlier judgement of the court on the matter, besides in violation of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) Act, 2022, and regulations made there under, and was thus liable to be set aside.

The petitioners, Dr Azizul Hasan Aamir and Dr Mohammad Ayaz Khan, have also challenged Schedule H appended to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, requesting the court to declare it to the extent of its repugnancy to PMDC Act, 2022 and regulations made there under to be against the Constitution and therefore of no legal effect.

They sought declaration of the court that the provincial cabinet`s relevant decision of Sept 23, 2026, and the letters of Sept 4 and Sept 9of provincial higher education department and law department, respectively, including the consequent proceedings of the respondent Academic Search Committee, were not in compliance with paragraphs21and 23 ofthe saidjudgement therefore illegal and consequently set aside the same.

They requested the court to direct the KMU chancellor and Academic Search Committee to reconsider the panel of eligible candidates, including the petitioners, and submit fresh recommendations to competent authority, in light of the standards set by PMDC under the governing regulations.

Advocate Sangeen Khan appeared for the petitioners and stated that in their earlier petition they had challenged the selection process, alleging that authorities failed to follow the mandatory statutory requirements and prescribed merit criteria in the selection of theKMU vice-chancellor.

He argued that contrary to the directions of the court, the members of ASC never analysed, deliberated upon or considered the legal position as put forward by the law department nor made fresh recommendations for appointment of the vice-chancellor.

The counsel said that it was learnt that merely the earlier recommendation was mechanically forwarded that too in the absence of the convener of committee and in the absence of the majority of its members.

He also raised the issue of the mandatory requirement of 10-year relevant experience as a professor for appointment as vice-chancellor to a medical university.

The lawyer said that the appointed vice-chancellor had less than two years of such experience and, therefore, did not fulfil the mandatory eligibility requirement.