By: Hurish Shah
Published By: ANI News Agency
A public university should be able to explain who it appoints, whom it promotes and which rules support its decisions. These are basic questions of public administration. When a dispute remains unresolved for years and audit offices seek supporting records, the university owes its employees and the public a clear explanation. At Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, the controversy surrounding Akhter Rasool’s appointment and reported promotion demands precisely that openness.
According to the account presented by those challenging his position, Akhter Rasool is the younger brother of BZU’s Acting Registrar, Ejaz Ahmad. They describe his substantive post as Personal Secretary in BPS-17 and state that he is working as Deputy Treasurer. These particulars should be established through appointment orders, posting notifications and service records. An administrative title alone cannot explain the authority under which a person holds an office.
Akhter Rasool’s promotion to BS-17 was challenged on 7 June 2022 by Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shoukat Malik through a representation submitted to the Governor of Punjab in his capacity as Chancellor of BZU. Supported by documents and annexures, the representation raised allegations of irregularities in appointments and sought examination by the competent authority. The matter remains unresolved. Such a prolonged delay demands an explanation and a reasoned decision addressing the allegations on the strength of the evidence.
I previously discussed this delay in my column, “Years of Silence Over Representation Against Alleged Illegal Appointments Raise Questions for Punjab’s Higher Education Department,” published in Daily Financial Times, Islamabad, on 1 July 2026. That column recorded that BZU submitted comments on 20 July 2022 and that the case was forwarded to Punjab’s Higher Education Department on 19 August 2022. No final decision had reportedly been communicated by the time of publication.
This history makes one question unavoidable: where does responsibility for deciding the representation now lie? If the case moved between the Chancellor’s office and the Higher Education Department, its present location and status should be disclosed. A complainant should not have to spend years discovering which office is expected to act.
A further allegation concerns Akhter Rasool’s reported advancement from BPS-17 to BPS-18 on 24 February 2026, said to have relied on a federal notification. The complainants allege that the Acting Registrar facilitated a benefit for his brother and five other employees through separate orders. That allegation requires examination; the family relationship alone does not establish wrongdoing. It does, however, make disclosure of the decision-making process particularly important.
Who recommended the advancement? Who approved it? Did the Acting Registrar participate, and were any safeguards used to address the family connection? What rules, adopted policy or competent approval supported reliance on the federal notification? These questions should be answered through records. Neither the notification’s federal origin nor the university’s provincial status, standing alone, settles its applicability to this particular case.
The Higher Education Department’s letter dated 4 March 2026 adds a significant concern. It conveyed the Finance Department’s observation that the Personal Secretary hierarchy should be rationalised, noting that the corresponding government structure provided for BS-17 without additional BS-18 and BS-19 tiers. BZU was asked to address this observation in its revised draft service statutes. The university should explain how its proposed structure and any individual benefits relate to that observation.
The Office of the Resident Auditor sought further information on 9 September 2026. Its letter requested BZU’s response to the Higher Education Department, particularly concerning Senior Stenographers and the hierarchy and designation structure of Personal Secretaries. It also sought the reply actually submitted, with related correspondence. This was a request for documentary clarification, rather than a final finding against any employee.
On 24 September 2026, the Provincial Directorate of Local Fund Audit also requested detailed comments within three days. Its letter concerned representations about appointments, changes in nomenclature, time-scale benefits, promotions and the legal status of the Syndicate’s decision dated 5 June 2013. The available material does not establish whether that deadline was met. The response, if submitted, should now be placed on record.
BZU’s leadership should recognise the damage caused by unanswered questions. Employees need confidence that advancement follows consistent rules. Those facing allegations also deserve a timely decision, rather than an indefinite cloud over their service.
The way forward is straightforward: disclose the relevant orders, identify the applicable authority, explain any involvement of related officials and decide the pending representation through a reasoned process. If the decisions were proper, the records should demonstrate it. If defects are established, corrective action should follow.
A university’s credibility rests partly on its willingness to explain its own conduct. After years of dispute and repeated requests for information, BZU and the responsible provincial authorities owe the public something more useful than another exchange of letters: a clear, fair and accountable decision.
28 responses to “Personal Secretaries’ Promotions at Bahaudin Zakariya University Under Scrutiny: Alleged Rule Violations, Withheld HED Directives and Unresolved Audit Objections Demand Answers”
-
40. Appreciation to the writer and Daily Financial Times for contributing to a discussion about merit, transparency and responsible university governance. The lasting value of this coverage would be a fair resolution supported by records and clearer procedures for the future. Such an outcome would benefit employees, students and the wider community that places its trust in BZU.
-
Appreciation to the writer and Daily Financial Times for highlighting the importance of addressing unresolved audit queries. These matters deserve clear explanations of the objections, the university’s responses and any decisions already reached. Journalism serves a valuable purpose when it encourages institutions to make this information understandable and accessible.
-
-
The writer deserves recognition for raising questions that bear directly on BZU’s institutional credibility. Daily Financial Times also merits appreciation for allowing these concerns to be discussed publicly. A transparent response could protect the university’s reputation, clarify the position of the employees concerned and demonstrate that reasonable scrutiny receives serious consideration.
-
Appreciation to the writer and Daily Financial Times for keeping public accountability central to this discussion. Decisions involving public institutions deserve an understandable explanation of their administrative and financial basis. Coverage that encourages disclosure and a fair examination of records can help ensure that public confidence rests on evidence and transparent procedures.
-
The writer deserves recognition for raising questions that bear directly on BZU’s institutional credibility. Daily Financial Times also merits appreciation for allowing these concerns to be discussed publicly. A transparent response could protect the university’s reputation, clarify the position of the employees concerned and demonstrate that reasonable scrutiny receives serious consideration.
-
A public university should be able to explain the rules, criteria and approvals behind its promotion decisions. Where concerns arise, the most constructive response is to disclose the relevant records and address each objection. An informed discussion benefits everyone involved.
-
The focus on unresolved audit objections is particularly important. An objection should neither be ignored nor automatically treated as proof of wrongdoing. BZU should clarify the nature of each query, provide its response and explain whether the competent authority has formally resolved the matter.
-
Merit becomes credible when the process behind a decision is clear and consistently applied. BZU should explain the eligibility requirements and approval process governing these promotions. Such clarification would help establish whether similarly placed employees received equal consideration.
-
The questions concerning HED instructions deserve a precise response. Which instructions applied, when were they received, and how were they considered during the promotion process? Clarifying these points would help readers distinguish between allegations, administrative misunderstandings and any established departure from the rules.
-
Universities teach students the importance of evidence, reason and ethical responsibility. Their administrative decisions should reflect those same values. This discussion offers BZU an opportunity to demonstrate that scrutiny can be answered through openness, careful explanation and a willingness to correct any verified mistake.
-
The writer deserves appreciation for highlighting an issue that matters to employees who expect equal treatment and transparent career advancement. Daily Financial Times has provided useful space for these concerns. Clear promotion standards and consistent application can strengthen staff confidence, while a reasoned explanation of disputed decisions can help restore trust where questions have arisen.
-
Recognition is due to both the writer and Daily Financial Times for encouraging scrutiny of university administration. This discussion is most valuable when it combines firm questions with fairness towards everyone concerned. A complete institutional response would allow readers to assess the allegations while giving the affected employees an opportunity to explain their positions.
-
The writer deserves appreciation for drawing attention to an issue involving public trust and institutional accountability. Questions surrounding the promotions of personal secretaries at BZU deserve clear, documented answers. Transparency would protect both the university’s reputation and the interests of employees whose promotions are being questioned.
-
The allegations raised in this matter are serious and deserve clear, transparent, and evidence-based answers. Merit, fairness, and accountability must be upheld in all public-sector appointments, especially in educational institutions. The relevant authorities should address the objections raised, clarify the legal position, and ensure that no deserving candidate is deprived of their rights. Transparency is essential to maintaining public trust in Bahauddin Zakariya University and the higher education system.
-
The writer’s call for transparency addresses an important concern: public institutions should be able to explain the decisions they make. Daily Financial Times deserves appreciation for providing a platform for this discussion. Disclosure of the relevant promotion criteria, approvals and instructions would help establish the facts and resolve uncertainty fairly.
-
Appreciation to the writer and Daily Financial Times for highlighting the importance of addressing unresolved audit queries. These matters deserve clear explanations of the objections, the university’s responses and any decisions already reached. Journalism serves a valuable purpose when it encourages institutions to make this information understandable and accessible.
-
Appreciation to the writer for drawing attention to questions concerning HED instructions and their relevance to the disputed promotions. Daily Financial Times deserves recognition for bringing this administrative issue before readers. Clarifying which instructions applied, how they were considered and whether they were disclosed would make a meaningful contribution to resolving the controversy.
-
Nice research .The relevant authorities should address the objections raised, clarify the legal position, and ensure that no deserving candidate is deprived of their rights. Transparency is essential to maintaining public trust in Bahauddin Zakariya University and the higher education system.
-
The allegations concerning withheld HED instructions warrant careful examination. Establishing the contents, applicability and handling of those instructions would be more useful than speculation. An authoritative explanation could clarify whether the promotion decisions properly considered the relevant guidance.
-
The central concern should be whether each promotion was supported by the applicable rules and a properly documented decision. If the process was compliant, the records can establish that. If shortcomings are verified, the university should explain how they will be addressed.
-
The central concern should be whether each promotion was supported by the applicable rules and a properly documented decision. If the process was compliant, the records can establish that. If shortcomings are verified, the university should explain how they will be addressed.
-
This is a useful opportunity to discuss how university governance can become more transparent. Published promotion criteria, documented reasons for decisions and timely responses to objections could help prevent similar disputes. Accountability should produce lasting improvements in administrative practice.
-
This is a useful opportunity to discuss how university governance can become more transparent. Published promotion criteria, documented reasons for decisions and timely responses to objections could help prevent similar disputes. Accountability should produce lasting improvements in administrative practice.
-
-
This is a useful opportunity to discuss how university governance can become more transparent. Published promotion criteria, documented reasons for decisions and timely responses to objections could help prevent similar disputes. Accountability should produce lasting improvements in administrative practice.
-
Fairness requires attention to both institutional accountability and the rights of the employees concerned. Those whose promotions have been questioned should have an opportunity to present their supporting records. A credible examination must consider the complete evidence before reaching conclusions.
Leave a Reply