PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has declared illegal the re-advertisement of the additional provost`s post in the University of Haripur and ordered the appointment of a petitioner, who fulfilled the required qualifications.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer and Justice Aurangzeb Khan accepted the petition filed by a candidate for the post, Pir Asfandyar, and directed the respondents, including the university`s syndicate, to appoint him against that post in BPS-19.

It also rejected the plea of another candidate, Dr Ziaur Rehman, who was initially appointed againstthatpostinstead of Mr Asfandyar but was later removed from there before the post was advertised again.

Dr Zia had requested the court set aside the decision of the university`s Senate of May 28, 2022, of directing the university`s syndicate to terminate his services and readvertise that post.

The bench ruled: `The university`s refusal to appoint the petitioner [Pir Asfandyar], and its decision to re-advertise the post instead, amounts to arbitrary exer-cise of power and violates principles of fair play and equal treatment in public employment.

The petitioner has established a clear legalright that deserves protection through judicial intervention.

Lawyer Junaid Anwar Khan appeared for petitioner Asfandyar and saidthathehad served against different posts and served as the assistant registrar and deputy registrar in the Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan.

He said that the petitioner had extensive experience in students` affairs, hostel management and university administration.

The lawyer said that the University of Haripur had advertised different posts,includingthat of additional provost to which the petitioner and the respondent (Dr Zia) had applied.

He said that the selection board conducted interviews on Feb 5, 2021.

`To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent [Dr Zia] was appointed against the said post through an order on Feb 8, 2021, based on the recommendation of the selection board and the subsequent approval of the syndicate, he said.

The counsel said that the petitioner was merely recommended as a standby candidate in that selection board and syndicate proceedings.

He pointed out that the governor, as the chancellor of the university, referred the matter to the Governor`s Inspection Team (GIT) for investigation.The lawyer said that the GIT concluded that the experience claimed by Dr Zia, primarily in the field of teaching, was irrelevant for the administrative post of additional provost.

He added that the GIT also found that awarding three additional marks to the respondent was illegal and had wrongly been assessed by the scrutiny and quantification committee.

The counsel added that the respondent was later held ineligible for the post.

He said that the university`s Senate, in its meeting on May 28, 2022, decided to remove the respondent from the post.

The lawyer contended that instead ofappointingthe petitioner to that position, it was re-advertised in an illegal manner on part of the university`s management bodies.

The bench observed that from the findings of the GIT`s report and its further endorsement by the Senate, it had clearly been established that the respondent (Dr Zia) was ineligible for appointment to the post of additional provost.

`On the contrary, the petitioner [Mr Asfandyar] possesses the prescribed qualifications and relevant experience in student affairs, the hostel`s management and the university`s administration, as required for the post. Furthermore, the petitioner stood at the top of the merit list,` it observed.

The bench ruled that in view of those facts, the petitioner was legally entitled to be appointed to the post of the additional registrar.