HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, has asked the Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences (LUMHS) syndicate for the names of candidates it has recommended for the post of pro-vice chancellor.
The bench comprising Justice Adnan ul Karim Memon and Justice Riazat Ali Sahar has told the syndicate to submit in court the names of senior most, eligible and fit candidates / professors “for reconsideration by competent authority”.
“A final decision shall thereafter be made by competent authority after hearing candidates duly recommended by syndicate of respondent university with sealed envelope to be placed before competent authority for decision on merit within one month,” the order said.
Petitioner Dr Seema Naz had moved court praying that the impugned summary submitted to the Sindh chief minister and subsequently approved for appointment of respondent pro-VC Dr Arshad Abro be declared void ab initio (never created).
SHC to guide competent authority on fairness in row between retired and incumbent office-holders
On April 8, 2025, a division bench of the SHC, seized with her petition, had suspended the appointment notification. She was represented by Advocate Humayun Khan. She had also prayed the court to restrain respondent authorities from issuing any notification regarding her removal as the LUMHS pro-VC until the final adjudication of her petition.
Her counsel said Dr Abro’s name was included in the June 13, 2024 summary for the post but was rejected by the CM on June 27, 2024 due to his being below the required seniority. He said Dr Abro’s name was again placed before the CM in a summary showing him at No. 34 of the seniority list despite no material change; and the abrupt reversal raises serious concerns of arbitrariness. He said the pro-VC was appointed under Section 14-A for a fixed four-year tenure, and argued that statute did not provide for automatic termination of service upon superannuation while the university code’s retirement rules apply to employees, not tenure-based statutory posts.
Barrister Jawad Qureshi, representing Dr Abro, termed appointment of petitioner Dr Seema Naz as the pro-VC illegal, saying that she belonged to the Faculty of Dentistry and, therefore, was ineligible for the post. Her appointment was politically influenced, the counsel alleged, and insisted that Dr Abro did not lack seniority or competence.
He maintained that reconsideration of Dr Abro’s name was neither arbitrary nor based on unchanged circumstance.
Advocate Aslam Pervaiz Sipio, the counsel for the LUMHS registrar, argued that Dr Abro did not meet essential statutory criteria as his professional record raised serious concerns about his suitability for this high academic office. He said Dr Riaz Raja had earlier filed a complaint against him and the LUMHS syndicate had on Oct 5, 2024 barred him from holding statutory / non-statutory position for years.
The court said: “Petitioner [Dr Naz] has no legal right to continue as pro VC following retirement and her claim to protection under tenure-based appointment doesn’t override statutory restrictions under Sindh Universities Laws (Amendment) Act 2013 thus March 26, 2025 summary and actions taken subsequently could not be set aside on grounds of arbitrariness”.
It said although concerns have been raised regarding merit and priority disciplinary matters, such appointments generally fall in the administrative decision of competent authority subject to constraints of law. It said CM was empowered to appoint pro-VC for a fixed tenure but this discretion must be exercised in line with the LUMHS Ordinance and university code which stipulated that no employee may be retained in service beyond the age of superannuation without syndicate’s approval.
“Principles of seniority cum fitness and established university practice cannot be disregarded at the same time,” said the order.
It ruled: “Appointment of respondent teacher was prima facie unjustified and was subject to all just exceptions as provided under the law despite fact that he is at serial No. 34 of list as such principles of seniority cum fitness and established university practice cannot be disregarded. Discretion exercised capriciously or contrary to statutory norms cannot be sustained. Therefore, a hasty or unreasonable appointment of a non-senior candidate will be inconsistent with these principles as such recommendation of respondent without recommendation of competent authority of respondent university is set at naught,” said the order.
The court noted: “CM’s authority under section 14-A(1) is required to operate within statutory boundaries; it cannot override University code, disregard seniority without justification and appoint a candidate beyond age of superannuation is not justiciable. Consequently, continuation of petitioner beyond age of superannuation is inconsistent with statutory framework as discussed supra”.
The court said: “Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of this case, judiciary propriety warrants directing syndicate of university to submit names of most senior eligible and fit candidates / professors, listed in order of seniority, for reconsideration by competent authority for appointment as pro VC”.
The bench had heard the parties on Dec 9, 2025 and reserved its order. The detailed nine-page order, authored by Justice Adnan ul Karim Memon, was released on Jan 20.
Published in Dawn, January 24th, 2026