SC questions criteria for LUMHS appointments

Karachi:July 23:The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the criteria for the appointments made by the vice chancellor of the Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences (LUMHS), Jamshoro, and observed that he had no powers to appoint persons in contravention of the recruitment rules.

Hearing a petition of contract employee Syed Shahid Ali Jaffery against the non-regularisation of his job, a three-member bench headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim asked the counsel for the university why a pick-and­-choose policy had been adopted in making employees permanent.

The petitioner said he had been appointed on a contract basis in June 2002 and his contract was extended from time to time till 2013, but he was not being regularised though other employees having political influence were regularised by the university.

The university’s counsel said the university had not regularised any employee in the last 10 years. The petitioner however disputed the claim of the counsel and said several employees, including additional controller Iqbal Memon, assistant registrar Mushtaq Shoro, Abdul Basit Khan, had been made permanent by the university due to some political influence or for being relatives of some high-ranking government officers.

He went on to state that Ali Asghar Abro, who was appointed a driver on contract, had been appointed assistant registrar of the university.

He further submitted that even the legal officer of the university and other representative who appeared before the court were appointed on a contract basis and later regularised.

The court inquired the university counsel as to how those persons were appointed without advertisement of the required posts, and it seemed that those persons were appointed after the university merely received their applications.

The court observed that this was sheer abuse of the authority by the vice chancellor of the university. It further said that if the record of the university was examined, half of the university employees would be found to have been appointed without adopting the required recruitment process.

The bench observed that the VC could not go beyond the law of the university nor court appointments be without fulfilling the required criteria.

It asked the counsel why the petitioner was not regularised although his contract was extended for the last 14 years.

The court directed the counsel of the university to inform the court after seeking instructions from the relevant authorities with regard to the restoration of the petitioner; otherwise the appointment record of all such employees would be examined who were regularised.

The counsel, after consultation with the relevant authorities, informed the court that employment of the petitioner would be restored.The news.