Hirings on old ad spark controversy

The District Health Authority (DHA) has completed the recruitment of 1,500 daily wage sanitary patrol workers for the new financial year based on an advertisement from the previous fiscal year, raising concerns about the transparency of the hiring process.

This decision has sparked controversy and raised several questions.

The recruitment of daily wage sanitary patrol workers for an extendable period of 89 days was finalised four days into the new financial year. This recruitment was conducted under the advertisement issued in the last financial year. Concerns have been raised about the legality and appropriateness of this move, given the timing and the reliance on an old advertisement.

Grade 17 female nutritionists, assigned to Basic Health Units (BHUs) in union councils outside Rawal Town, have been redirected to monitor the anti-dengue campaign in Rawal Town. These nutritionists, whose primary focus is on health, are now tasked with dengue monitoring without adequate transport facilities, making their job challenging.

Furthermore, these female officers have been warned of strict action if dengue larvae are found during their monitoring activities.

In contrast, three male nutritionists have been appointed to key positions within the DHA office in Rawal Town. An officer has been designated as the in-charge of the Planning and Development Branch, MIS Johar Aqeel, who does not hold a law degree, has been appointed as a legal advisor, and Muhammad Khan has been named the polio in-charge. These appointments have raised eyebrows, particularly regarding the legal advisor role, as Johar Aqeel lacks the necessary legal qualifications.

However, DHA Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Dr Asif Arbab defended the recruitment process. He stated that delaying the recruitment to issue a new advertisement would have hampered the anti-dengue campaign. Dr Arbab emphasised that the recruitment was conducted lawfully based on the existing advertisement

Regarding the reassignment of female nutritionists, Dr Arbab noted that efforts were made to assign them to the nearest union council. He assured that if any female nutritionist faced difficulties due to the reassignment, their cases would be reviewed. He also asserted that the three male nutritionists assigned to the DHA office continue to perform their duties in their respective union councils, with photographic evidence of their fieldwork.

However, Dr Arbab could not provide a satisfactory response when questioned about the assignment of a nutritionist without a law degree to handle judicial matters. Additionally, he did not clarify under what authority the three male nutritionists were given positions in the DHA office, complete with air-conditioned offices and transport facilities, despite their appointments being intended for union councils.