PESHAWAR: Issuing a stay order, the Peshawar High Court on Friday temporarily stopped the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government from issuing notification of the appointment of the Khyber Medical University’s vice chancellor over a petition challenging the selection process.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Inamullah Khan issued notices to the respondents including the KP government, Khyber Medical University’s chancellor, the relevant academic search committee and others seeking their response to the petition requesting to declare the appointment process of the vice chancellor of the university as illegal and in violation of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Universities Act, 2012.

The bench fixed June 13 for next hearing of the petition filed by senior professors Dr Azizul Hassan Aamir and Dr Mohammad Ayaz Khan, who are shortlisted candidates for the post of KMU’s VC.

The petitioners claimed that the appointment process was based on unstructured quantification criteria.

Seeks govt response to petition against selection procedure

The petitioners have sought declaration of the court that evaluation and selection of the candidates solely on the basis of interview and discarding objective assessment of candidates as required under Schedule II of the Universities Act as illegal and unlawful.

They also sought interim relief seeking directives of the court for the government to suspend the process of appointment till final decision on the petition.

Senior lawyer Amir Javed appeared for the petitioners and stated that his clients possessed the qualifications, experience and credentials prescribed under the KP Universities Act, 2012, for appointment as KMU’s VC.

He stated that they applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents in Dec 2025 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as VC of KMU.

He stated that as per the term of the advertisement it was provided that the academic search committee should short list the eligible candidates on the basis of criteria devised by it.

The counsel stated that after scrutiny of applications the petitioners and another candidate were declared eligible and shortlisted by the academic search committee constituted under Section 12 of the Act.

However, he said that three other candidates (also respondents in the petition) lacking the essential qualification and experience were not shortlisted. He said that the said three candidates, being employees of KMU, filed an appeal in an unprecedented manner and managed to be declared as eligible candidates besides the petitioners.

Consequently, Mr Javed stated that the petitioners appeared before the academic search committee for interview. However, he said, it was unfortunate to note that the interview was conducted in a casual manner in the sense that no meaningful questions and or discussion was conducted as to the competency, ability, professional standing and administrative experience of the petitioners.

He stated that after conclusion of the interview, which was ceremonious, the petitioners became aware of serious procedural irregularities which prima facie indicated that the mandatory statutory procedure had not been adhered to in its true letter and spirit, thereby impairing the transparency and credibility of the selection process.

The counsel stated that the petitioner requested the academic search committee to provide criteria against which quantification and evaluation of candidates had been made, however, they were informed that all the candidates were evaluated on the basis of interview.

He added that the petitioners then submitted a detailed representation before the competent authority requesting disclosure of evaluation criteria, verification of eligibility of all the shortlisted and recommended candidates and an independent review of the proceedings of the search committee. However, he said that despite the serious nature of the issues raised, no effective remedial action had been taken.

He claimed that the petitioners had learnt that the said three candidates/ respondents possessing substantially lesser academic and administrative leadership experience had reportedly been recommended for the post over several senior and more experienced academicians who had served as vice chancellors, deans, etc.

Mr Javed argued that the relevant rules prescribed a merit-based formula under which 70 percent weightage was allocated to objective factors, including academic qualifications, research publications, administrative experience, leadership credentials and professional achievements, while only 30 percent marks were reserved for the interview.

The counsel contended that the interview could not legally override the substantial weight assigned to academic and professional credentials. He further argued that under the applicable Pakistan Medical and Dental Colleges regulations, a candidate for the office of Vice Chancellor of a medical university must possess at least 10 years of relevant experience as a professor.

He said that the candidates recommended by the search committee allegedly had less than two years of such experience and, therefore, did not fulfil the mandatory eligibility requirement.

The counsel said that despite repeated requests, the authorities failed to disclose the quantification formula, marking criteria and assessment methodology adopted by the committee, raising serious concerns about transparency, fairness and equal treatment of all shortlisted candidates.

He contended that all the three recommended candidates were inedible under the PMDC criteria.

Published in Dawn, July 11th, 2026