PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has partially accepted a petition against the process to appoint the vice chancellor to Peshawar’s Khyber Medical University, setting aside the nominations and directing the academic search committee to submit fresh recommendations after getting opinion from the law department and Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC).
A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Dr Khursheed Iqbal issued the directions while hearing a petition jointly filed by senior professors and shortlisted candidates Dr A.H. Amir and Dr Mohammad Ayaz Khan.
The petitioners had challenged the selection process, alleging that authorities failed to follow the mandatory statutory requirements and prescribed merit criteria in the selection of the KMU vice chancellor.
The court had last month stopped the KP government from issuing notification of the appointment of the VC.
Orders fresh selection process after getting law dept, PMDC’s opinion
The bench released a two-page short order while detailed judgment will be issued later.
It declared that for detailed reasons to be recorded later, subject to such amplification or elucidation as might be deemed appropriate, the writ petition had been partially allowed.
“The matter of appointment to the position of Vice-Chancellor, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, is remitted to the Academic Search Committee for reconsideration of the panel of eligible candidates for the position of Vice-Chancellor, after obtaining an opinion from the Law Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, as well as the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, as to whether the Regulations for Appointment/Promotion of Faculty/Teaching Staff/Examiners/Principals/Deans/Vice-Chancellors in Undergraduate & Postgraduate Medical & Dental Institutions/Medical Universities of Pakistan, 2025, notified vide Notification dated 27th February 2025, which, inter alia, provides under Regulation No. 10 that a candidate for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of a medical university must have served as a Professor for at least ten years in a recognized medical institution, are applicable to the appointment of Vice-Chancellor of Khyber Medical University,” it ruled.
The bench added that in the event of conflicting opinions, the matter shall be resolved in the manner prescribed under the Rules of Business, 1985, or shall be placed before the Cabinet for an appropriate decision. Upon receipt of the said decision or opinion, as the case may be, the Academic Search Committee shall submit fresh recommendations for appointment to the position of vice chancellor, to the competent authority.
The petitioners had 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.
The petitioners claimed that the appointment process was based on unstructured quantification criteria.
Senior counsel Amir Javed appeared for the petitioners arguing that the selection process had been conducted in disregard of the Universities Act, 2012.
He argued that Rule 2 of Clause 2 provided a merit-based formula under which 70 per cent weightage is allocated to objective factors, including academic qualifications, research publications, administrative experience, leadership credentials and professional achievements, while only 30 per cent marks are allocated to the interview.
The counsel contended that the interview could not override the substantial weight assigned to academic and professional credentials.
He further raised the issue of the mandatory requirement of 10-year relevant experience as a professor for appointment as the vice chancellor to a medical university.
The lawyer said that the candidates reportedly recommended by the search committee allegedly had less than two years of such experience and, therefore, did not fulfil the mandatory eligibility requirement.
He submitted that authorities could not ignore a mandatory statutory requirement merely by invoking discretionary powers.
The counsel argued that whenever matters of this nature had come before the superior courts, it had been held that applicable federal laws and statutory requirements could not be disregarded by authorities.
During the hearing, the provincial government’s law officer as well as counsel for the respondents argued that determination of the eligibility criteria and appointment process fell within the exclusive domain of the provincial government.
Advocate Javed opposed the contention and referred to the Supreme Court judgements, insisting that although a competent authority was allowed to exercise powers vested in it under the law, such discretion couldn’t be exercised in an arbitrary or unbridled manner.
He argued that discretionary powers must be exercised objectively, on merit and strictly in accordance with the law.
The counsel maintained that the provincial government couldn’t use its discretionary authority to ignore mandatory eligibility requirements or alter the prescribed criteria without following the procedure laid down by the law.
Published in Dawn, August 15th, 2026
