BY: Ms. Husrish Shah : Published by ANI
Public institutions earn legitimacy through obedience to law, transparency, and timely decisions. When representations remain undecided for years, court directions appear unimplemented, and citizens are denied access to official records, administrative silence risks becoming a failure of governance.
The controversy surrounding Mr. Ejaz Ahmad, Registrar of Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU), Multan, began before his present acting appointment. His earlier appointment, made while he was serving as Deputy Registrar, was challenged before the Governor of Punjab through a representation dated 7 June 2022. Both sides reportedly submitted supporting documents and comments.
The matter was subsequently transferred to the Higher Education Department (Punjab) under the applicable law and policies. However, despite the passage of years, no final decision has reportedly been communicated. This raises a fundamental question: how long must a citizen wait before an official representation is finally decided?
The issue was highlighted in a column titled, “Years of Silence Over Representation Against Alleged Illegal Appointments Raise Questions for Punjab’s Higher Education Department.” The newspaper kept its pages open for an official response.
No meaningful reply was received. No public clarification was issued. No visible action followed.
The controversy deepened when Mr. Ejaz Ahmad was appointed Acting Registrar on 31 December 2024. The university notification reportedly linked the appointment to directions from the Higher Education Department following the Supreme Court judgment dated 24 October 2024.
Paragraph 39(c) of the judgment reportedly provides that vacant tenured posts, including the Registrar’s position, should not remain under acting charge for more than six months. Temporary arrangements were not intended to become substitutes for transparent, merit-based regular appointments.
More than nineteen months have now passed since 31 December 2024. If paragraph 39(c) applies to the present circumstances, the continuation of the acting arrangement requires an immediate legal explanation. A public university cannot reasonably rely upon one part of a judicial direction while disregarding a limitation contained within the same framework.
This issue was again highlighted in Daily Financial Times through the column, “The Supreme Court Spoke. Did BZU Listen? Paragraph 39(c), the Six-Month Rule, and the Continuing Registrar Controversy.” Yet the questions remained unanswered.
Another serious issue concerns access to official records.
A citizen, Muhammad Aslam, reportedly applied to the Governor’s Secretariat for certified copies of the representation filed before the Governor of Punjab on 7 June 2022, its annexures, the university’s paragraph-wise comments dated 20 July 2022, and other relevant public documents.
According to the account presented, the Governor’s Secretariat directed the Vice Chancellor of BZU on 14 May 2026 to provide the certified copies within the legally prescribed timeframe. However, the documents were allegedly not supplied. Instead, the citizen subsequently raised allegations of harassment.
The matter was then highlighted in another column titled, “Ignoring the Governor’s Orders? Allegations Against Bahauddin Zakariya University’s Vice Chancellor Prof. Dr. Zubair Ahmad Ghori and Registrar Ejaz Ahmad Over Withholding Records and Harassment of a Citizen.”
Despite the public attention, the documents were reportedly still not provided. Muhammad Aslam subsequently submitted another application before the Governor of Punjab on 23 June 2026, which, according to the information available, remained pending.
Taken together, this sequence raises serious questions about institutional accountability.
A representation was filed. Replies were reportedly placed on record. The matter was transferred for decision. The Governor’s Secretariat reportedly directed that certified documents be supplied. The media repeatedly raised questions. The right of reply was available. Yet there appears to have been no final decision, clear public explanation, or visible accountability.
What, then, is the role of the Higher Education Department?
Is it merely a forwarding office, or does it have a responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable judicial directions and lawful appointment procedures? Where a statutory office remains under an acting arrangement beyond an apparently prescribed period, the department should either take corrective action or provide a clear and reasoned legal justification.
The Higher Education Commission (HEC) must also clarify its position. Even if it is not the direct appointing authority, questions concerning governance standards, merit, transparency, statutory appointments, and institutional accountability in higher education cannot simply be ignored.
The Governor’s Secretariat and the Punjab Government also have an important responsibility. A representation left undecided for years undermines public confidence. A direction issued but apparently not implemented raises questions about administrative effectiveness. A citizen should not have to repeatedly approach the media simply to obtain an answer from public institutions.
The appropriate response is not to presume guilt. It is to establish the facts.
The government should consider ordering an independent review, deciding the pending representation through a reasoned order, clarifying the legal status of the Acting Registrar arrangement, ensuring lawful access to public records, and examining the allegations of harassment through due process.
If the allegations are incorrect, the relevant authorities should make the record available and clear the names of those accused of wrongdoing. If violations are established, responsibility should be determined according to law, without favour or discrimination.
The Supreme Court has issued its directions. Citizens have submitted representations. The Governor’s Secretariat has reportedly issued directions. The media has repeatedly raised the alarm. Yet decisive institutional action remains difficult to see.
Silence from HED, HEC, the Governor’s Secretariat, and other relevant authorities cannot continue indefinitely without consequences for public confidence. Prolonged inaction risks damaging BZU’s credibility and creating the perception that legal and administrative obligations can be delayed until they lose their practical meaning.
The rule of law requires more than orders on paper. It requires implementation.
And accountability begins when institutions answer difficult questions—not when they avoid them.
