Published BY: ANI
Written By: Hurish Shah
Public institutions derive their legitimacy not from personalities but from their adherence to law. Universities, in particular, are expected to serve as models of transparency, accountability, and respect for legal norms. It is therefore both legitimate and necessary to examine whether the continued appointment of the Acting Registrar at Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU), Multan, is consistent with the directions issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding appointments to statutory positions in public sector universities.This issue is not based on speculation, political rivalry, or personal grievances. Rather, it arises from two official documents: the appointment notification issued by BZU and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 24 October 2024 in Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2024.According to the university’s notification, Mr. Ijaz Ahmad was appointed as Acting Registrar on 31 December 2024. More importantly, paragraph 3 of the notification expressly states that the Higher Education Department (HED), Government of Punjab, through its letter dated 26 November 2024, directed Bahauddin Zakariya University to take necessary steps for filling statutory posts in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, particularly paragraph 39 of the decision.This fact is of central importance. The appointment was not made independently of the Supreme Court’s judgment. On the contrary, the notification itself acknowledges that the appointment process was undertaken pursuant to directions flowing from the Supreme Court and conveyed by the Higher Education Department. Thus, the judgment forms an integral part of the legal foundation upon which the appointment rests.The controversy comes into sharp focus when paragraph 39 of the Supreme Court’s judgment is examined in its entirety. Through this paragraph, the Apex Court issued comprehensive directions to public sector universities and educational authorities across the country. Most importantly, clause (c) of paragraph 39 unequivocally mandates that vacant tenured positions “must not be held for more than six months on acting charge-basis.” It is this mandatory requirement that constitutes the central issue and the real bone of contention in the present matter.The language employed by the Supreme Court is neither advisory nor recommendatory; it is mandatory. The Court’s objective was clear: to end the longstanding culture of prolonged acting appointments that has plagued many public institutions. The judgment was designed not merely to regulate appointments but also to strengthen institutional governance, accountability, and public confidence in higher education institutions.Against this backdrop, a fundamental legal and administrative question naturally arises. If the appointment of the Acting Registrar was made pursuant to paragraph 39 of the Supreme Court’s judgment, and if more than six months have elapsed since the appointment made on 31 December 2024, has the requirement contained in paragraph 39(c) been fully implemented? Equally important, has a regular appointment process been initiated and completed in accordance with the University’s governing statutes and the Supreme Court’s directions?These questions are not directed at the individual holding the office. Nor do they concern personal competence or performance. The issue is purely institutional and legal. It concerns whether a public university can invoke paragraph 39 of the Supreme Court’s judgment as the basis for making an acting appointment while appearing not to give effect to the limitation expressly imposed by clause (c) of the same paragraph.In legal and administrative governance, compliance cannot ordinarily be selective. A public institution cannot rely upon one part of a judicial directive as a source of authority while disregarding another part that imposes a corresponding obligation. Such an approach would undermine the very purpose of the Court’s intervention and weaken the principles of transparency, accountability, and institutional stability that the judgment sought to promote.The implications extend beyond a single office or a single university. The office of Registrar is one of the most important statutory positions within a university. The Registrar serves as the custodian of official records and occupies a central role in implementing administrative decisions. Prolonged uncertainty regarding the status of such a position inevitably raises concerns about governance standards, institutional credibility, and compliance with legal requirements.The issue also touches upon a broader constitutional principle: equality before the law. If judicial directives are binding upon citizens, government departments, and statutory bodies, universities cannot claim a different standard of compliance. Respect for the rule of law requires that court orders be implemented consistently and uniformly, regardless of the institution involved.The question, therefore, is not whether any particular individual should continue in office. Rather, it is whether the directions of the Supreme Court regarding acting appointments to statutory positions have been fully implemented in both letter and spirit. That question deserves a clear, transparent, and legally reasoned answer from the relevant authorities.The rule of law demands consistency, impartiality, and unwavering adherence to judicial directives. Court orders cannot be implemented selectively or according to administrative convenience. Universities are not only centers of learning; they are also public institutions entrusted with upholding the very principles they teach. The real test now lies in whether the relevant authorities will address these concerns with transparency, accountability, and due regard for the Supreme Court’s directives, thereby reaffirming the supremacy of law and restoring public confidence in the governance of one of Punjab’s most prestigious public universities.
