ISLAMABAD, May 23: A petition, filed against the renaming of Quaid-i-Azam medical college (present in Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences) as Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) Medical University was admitted by the Islamabad High Court on Thursday.

In the petition, joint executive director Pims and other senior officials challenged the Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Medical University Act, 2013 according to which Pims had become a medical university but with a different name.

The act had been passed by the parliament on February 23 and by the Senate on March 8.

It was signed by President Asif Zardari in March and Pims was given the degree-awarding status but renamed to ZAB Medical University.

The bill was floated by the Ministry of Capital Administration and Development (CAD), according to which the university would have a chancellor, pro-chancellor, vice-chancellor, pro-vice chancellor and members of the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council and other authorities.

Advocate Shoaib Shaheen, the petitioner’s counsel, contended that the bill was a political maneuver of the former government, and was introduced to benefit former executive director Pims Dr Riaz Warriach.

He said Dr Warraich was not eligible for the position he holds in Pims, but managed it because of his political connections.

The bill had been drafted to upgrade him as vice chancellor of the medical university.

According to section 13 of the bill, Dr Warriach had become the vice chancellor as the bill stated, “The first vice-chancellor shall be the incumbent Executive Director, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences till the Search Committee finalises theappointment.”

Mr Shaheen said the IHC, on April 22, had declared the appointment of Dr Warriach as ED Pims illegal. He added that there was no need to rename Pims and the name of the founder of Pakistan should not be replaced with any other political leader.

The counsel also alleged that several provisions of the act were against the Civil Service Act, 1973 and would adversely affect the performance of medical professionals, thus adding to the miseries of poor patients.

He claimed the act was against fundamental rights of citizens and was liable to be declared void ab initio.

Justice Siddiqui, after hearing the arguments, issued notices to secretaries Establishment, CAD, Law, Education and Training, and Chairman Higher Education Commission, and directed them to submit their reply by the first week of June.