KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has directed the chief secretary, Higher Education Commission and others to file their respective comments in a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of the vice chancellor of the Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University (SMBBMU), Larkana.

Petitioner Prof Jan Muhammad Memon, represented by Advocate Mansoorul Haque Solangi, asked the court to declare the appointment of Prof Ghulam Asghar Channa as VC of the medical varsity because he did not have a PhD degree — a mandatory requirement laid down by the HEC for the post.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that his client was the only person in the province holding a PhD degree in urology and having over a teaching experience of 24 years in several universities across the country.

He said that in response to an advertisement in the press, Prof Memon timely applied for the post of the VC on Nov 8, 2013 and he emerged the only PhD degree holder among the shortlisted candidates.

Advocate Solangi said that the petitioner was called for an interview and being the only PhD in the province was recommended by members of the selection committee for appointment as the VC. However, he said, the respondents mala fidely placed another advertisement for the post with a substantial change in the prescribed qualification and experience to illegally accommodate Prof Channa.

The counsel said that notwithstanding clear favoritism, nepotism and hostile discriminatory treatment with the petitioner, he again applied for the post and was subsequently called on Feb 10 for an interview. However, he said, Prof Channa was appointed without lawful authority, as the candidate for the post of the VC was required to be PhD with sufficient experience and writings in the internationally recognised journals.

Advocate Solangi said that the respondent professor was a diploma holder and retired from the civil service on Jan 11, 2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. Besides, he was not among the shortlisted candidates who were called for interview in response to the first advertisement for the post.

A division bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar directed the respondents — governor/chancellor, chief secretary, secretary of universities and boards, VC Prof Ghulam Asghar Channa and HEC — to file their respective replies on the petition and put off the hearing to April 23.

Free medical facilities for lawyers

Another division bench headed by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah once again directed the provincial authorities concerned to file their replies in a petition of the Malir Bar Association seeking medical facilities for over 31,000 lawyers across the province in the government hospitals.

The petition was filed by Malir Bar President Muhammad Ashraf Samoo, who submitted that majority of the lawyers along with their families could not get adequate medical treatment as most of them were poor and unable to bear the treatment expenses.

He pointed out that the Sindh government had issued a notification for free medical facilities to advocates and their families in the government hospitals but they were being denied such facilities.

He requested the court to order implementation of the notification.

Opinion

Editorial

Impending slaughter
Updated 07 May, 2024

Impending slaughter

Seven months into the slaughter, there are no signs of hope.
Wheat investigation
07 May, 2024

Wheat investigation

THE Shehbaz Sharif government is in a sort of Catch-22 situation regarding the alleged wheat import scandal. It is...
Naila’s feat
07 May, 2024

Naila’s feat

IN an inspirational message from the base camp of Nepal’s Mount Makalu, Pakistani mountaineer Naila Kiani stressed...
Plugging the gap
06 May, 2024

Plugging the gap

IN Pakistan, bias begins at birth for the girl child as discriminatory norms, orthodox attitudes and poverty impede...
Terrains of dread
Updated 06 May, 2024

Terrains of dread

Restored faith in the police is unachievable without political commitment and interprovincial support.
Appointment rules
Updated 06 May, 2024

Appointment rules

If the judiciary had the power to self-regulate, it ought to have exercised it instead of involving the legislature.