ISLAMABAD: The Higher Education Commission`s (HEC) governing body has removed Executive Director (ED) Dr Ziaul Qayyum from his position over `poor performance`, two years before the completion of his tenure.

The announcement was made on Wednesday through a brief statement, which said the decision was taken by the commission upon the recommendation of the Performance Evaluation Committee.

`Upon the recommendation of the Performance Evaluation Committee, the HEC`s Commission has relieved Dr Ziaul Qayyum from his position as ED. In the interim, Dr Mazhar Saeed, Adviser (Planning & Development) at HEC, has been assigned the charge of the office, the statement read.

The commission has also directed that the recruitment process for a permanent ED be initiated without delay.

According to sources, there were tussles between the ED and the HEC chairman on several issues.

The chairman`s tenure is set to end in July this year. The purported tussle was highlighted by Dawn last month. However, at the time, the chairman denied any such conflict, stating that the performance evaluation of the ED was a mandatory process.

Dr Qayyum was appointed as ED in 2023 for a four-year term. The incumbent chairman has been part of HEC for a long time and held several positions before becoming its chief.

Dr Mukhtar, after serving as member and ED, was appointed chairman of the HEC during 2014-18. He was reappointed in 2022 and his tenure ended in July last year. However, the government extended his term by one year, which is set to con-clude in July this year.

Sources said that on Wednesday, the ED, through an email addressed to all HEC`s governing body members, recorded his grave concerns regarding the commission meeting.

`Despite my categorical reservations, formally communicated via email on 28th April 2025, the Chairman has proceeded unilaterally and in undue haste with convening this meeting without addressing the substantive issues raised by me. The decision to hold such a significant meeting virtually, without prior circulation of a formal agenda, further erodes the legitimacy of the proceedings and undermines the rights of Commission members to deliberate meaningfully and in good faith,` he wrote in the email.

He also termed the decision `profoundly disturbing and contrary to the most basic tenets of justice`.

`It is also profoundly disturbing and contrary to the most basic tenets of justice that the very individual against whom I have raised serious concerns is now presiding over this meeting. To expect an impartial and unbiased process under such circumstances defies both logic and legal fairness. This glaring conflict of interest not only compromises the credibility of the proceedings but also renders them susceptible to challenge on grounds of bias and lack of due process,` he added.

In his email, the former ED stated that the sequence of events began with the procurement of hardware equipment under the Higher Education Development Project (HEDP) during October and November 2024, wherein he reportedly observed serious procedural irregularities.

`I had expressed specific apprehensions that the structure and content of the Request for Proposals (RFPs) appeared to be skewed in favour of a pre-determined `most advantageous` bidder concerns that materialised following the conclusion of the procurement,` he said.

He further stated that during the procurement process for licenses related to the ERP solution at HEC, his objections were not only disregarded but entirely excluded from due consideration.

`Alarmingly, during my sanctionedleave, approval for this procurement was expedited and obtained from the Acting Executive Director, in clear violation of established administrative and financial protocols.

More recently, in the matter of the Prime Minister`s Laptop Scheme (Phase IV), he said: `I unequivocally conveyed my categorical stance to the Chairman.

However, based on the developments of the past several weeks, I am compelled to believe that my reservations were neither acknowledged nor communicated to the members of the Performance Appraisal Committee. The instances cited above are merely illustrative; there are several other projects in which I raised similar concerns regarding procedural transparency, financial prudence, and regulatory compliance.

He also sought adequate time to prepare his response and an opportunity to present his case in person.

Meanwhile, in its written reply, an HEC spokesperson stated that there was no tussle between the ED and the chairman.

`Today, the Commission, based on the performance evaluation report, removed the ED. The Commission is a competent forum. There is no tussle in HEC; a difference of opinion is something else. The ED, after a three-month delay, submitted his report, which was reviewed by a four-member committee of Commission members.

After reviewing it, the committee submitted the report to the Commission, and on Wednesday, the Commission endorsed the report and removed the ED,` the spokesperson said.

Commenting on the email of the ex-ED addressed to commission members, he said it was his (removed official`s) opinion.

`It is not true that the ED was singled out. The performance of every MP-scale officer is reviewed annually. This is mandatory under the MP Policy. When the current Chairman was serving on the MP scale, as well as other officers, their performance was also reviewed.

In response to a question about the performance of the HEC chairman, the spokesperson said the federal government is the appointing authority of the chairman and from time to time, the government reviews the chairman`s performance.