President Dr Arif Alvi on Wednesday rejected an instant representation from the largest tertiary care hospital in the federal capital against an order of the federal ombudsperson (wafaqi mohtasib) on maladministration in the appointment of a draftsman.
The decision came after Dr Alvi reviewed two reports he had ordered, the first about an internal inquiry into the contentious appointment and the other on the interview process at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (Pims), both of which were to be submitted to the federal ombudsperson within 45 days.
Asim Hanif had applied to Pims for the advertised post of a draftsman in basic pay scale (BPS) grade-14.
Thereafter, he had topped a written exam by obtaining 63 marks. However, he was dumped out of the recruitment process at the interview phase after the interview committee awarded him just six marks out of a possible 30.
Feeling aggrieved, Hanif had approached the federal ombudsperson. His case was heard on September 30, 2020, where the Pims Joint Executive Director Dr Minhajus Siraj appeared alongside Deputy Director Jameel Shirazi.
A review of the record showed that Hanif held a Bachelors in Technology (Honours) along with a diploma of an associate engineer.
On the other hand, the selected candidate was a matriculate with an associate engineer diploma. The successful candidate had also secured just 48 marks in the written examination while she had been given a score of 25 by the interview committee.
The federal ombudsperson held that the complainant had been put at a disadvantageous position by giving him just six marks in the interview, although he had topped in the initial screening test.
“The selected candidate scored 15% fewer marks than the complainant, but was pulled up, given her maximum marks in the interview.”
The order added that both candidates possessed the same qualification, experience and diplomas. The interview marks, it noted, are divided objectively and not subjectively, based on relevant knowledge, experience and other communication skills.
The ombudsperson found that in this case, the guidelines had been violated, and maladministration was observed by bringing in a candidate from the bottom to top and pulling the top-most candidate down by awarding him just six marks.
“Such an assessment of a candidate by the interview committee is totally unfair and biased constituting maladministration as a candidate scoring the highest marks in the written examination cannot be so incompetent to get even the passing marks in the interview.”
The ombudsperson noted that maladministration was established against Pims and accepted the complaint’s petition while declaring the interview process as “null and void”.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2020.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ