LARKANA: The Larkana circuit bench of the Sindh High Court on Wednesday stayed the operation of an order issued by secretary to the chief minister for universities and boards, which cancelled the appointment of the registrar of the Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University.

The order issued on May 5 contended that Prof Dr Sikandar Mughal had been appointed registrar on April 7, 2014, because of a typographical error in the notification, and sought to correct the ‘mistake’, saying the word ‘registrar’ had been inadvertently ‘mistyped’ which should now be read as ‘director of finance’.

The division bench comprising Justices Naimatullah Phulpoto and Salahuddin Panhwar heard the urgent petition filed by Prof Mughal who has challenged the secretary’s corrigendum, and ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner (registrar) till the next date of hearing on May 20.

The counsel for the petitioner, Shamsuddin Abbasi, said that Prof Mughal was appointed registrar on April 7 by the same authority which issued a corrigendum after a month to cancel his appointment as registrar and make him instead ‘director of finance’.

Prof Mughal had earlier remained registrar of the university from July 2009 till Sept 29, 2011, and being a paediatric surgeon he could not hold the post of director of finance which required expertise in financial matters, he said.

The order said the registrar’s post was a permanent assignment which should be filled through advertisement but the post had been filled temporarily since 2009.

The court issued notices to the secretary to the CM, chief secretary and additional advocate general and said no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing on May 20.

The petitioner’s counsel said that according to the April 7 notification Prof Mughal was to work on the post till the selection of a permanent registrar. The May 5 corrigendum was a politically motivated move against the petitioner and not a typographical mistake, he said. He requested the court to declare the April 7 notification issued by the secretary was legal and in accordance with law while the May 5 corrigendum was contrary to first notification and thus liable to be set aside.