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.
Leave a Reply