Controversial letter: Another govt move to circumvent HEC’s autonomy
Executive director’s tenure cut from four to two years.
According to letter, an extension, if required, in the tenure of existing MP scale officers will be extended, if performance evaluation committee finds their performance satisfactory. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
Despite the apex court’s ruling, the government has made another move to interfere in the Higher Education Commission’s (HEC) affairs, particularly in the appointment of the new executive director (ED).
In a recent letter from the Finance Division, the tenure of Management Position (MP) scales has been revised, reducing the ED’s service period, an MP-I scale officer.
The period of contract for MP I, II and III will be determined by the appointing authority, “but cannot exceed two years,” according to the letter from the Finance Division.
While according to the HEC Ordinance, the tenure of MP-I officers is four years, the tenure for MP-II and III is two years.
This new development has raised questions over the service periods of current MP scale officers and recruitment of the new ED. The HEC, according to the Supreme Court (SC) ruling of December 17, is bound to appoint a new ED, but applications had been invited for a four-year contract.
“The notification from the Finance Division must be a mistake as MP-I scale officers’ tenure is defined in the HEC ordinance,” said an official at the HEC, requesting anonymity.
According to the letter, an extension, if required, in the tenure of existing MP scale officers will be extended, if the performance evaluation committee finds their performance satisfactory.
Currently, there are six MP scale officers at HEC, whose future at the commission seems uncertain. Previously, they were granted extensions after the initial two-year period if decided by the HEC’s board of governors.
Interestingly, there are three committees that have been formed to date, including one by HEC in 2009 and another in May 2012.
Another HEC official told The Express Tribune that the latter has no laws and prescribed rules even 12 years after it was formed. “For instance, there is confusion about the controlling authority as mentioned in the HEC Ordinance, which defines it is as the PM, but HEC officials reiterate that it is an autonomous body and nobody has the authority to give it directives,” said an official at the human research and development department.
He said the HEC was selective in its claim about being an independent body but when employees raise issues related to promotion, they are told to come up with orders from the Establishment Division and Finance Division.
HEC Chairman Javaid Leghari told The Express Tribune that he had not seen the letter as yet, so he could not comment on it. “For the new ED, we will follow the SC’s directions.” There is a difference between the appointing authority, a term that appears in the letter and the controlling authority which is the PM, he added. “The appointing authority is the HEC’s 17-member commission.”
The Establishment Division in October 2012 sent a letter to the HEC and termed all appointments illegal because the extensions, the letter read, were not made with approval from the controlling authority, which is the PM. HEC’s top officials were of the view that it had the right to decide the commission’s affairs.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2013.
Despite the apex court’s ruling, the government has made another move to interfere in the Higher Education Commission’s (HEC) affairs, particularly in the appointment of the new executive director (ED).
In a recent letter from the Finance Division, the tenure of Management Position (MP) scales has been revised, reducing the ED’s service period, an MP-I scale officer.
The period of contract for MP I, II and III will be determined by the appointing authority, “but cannot exceed two years,” according to the letter from the Finance Division.
While according to the HEC Ordinance, the tenure of MP-I officers is four years, the tenure for MP-II and III is two years.
This new development has raised questions over the service periods of current MP scale officers and recruitment of the new ED. The HEC, according to the Supreme Court (SC) ruling of December 17, is bound to appoint a new ED, but applications had been invited for a four-year contract.
“The notification from the Finance Division must be a mistake as MP-I scale officers’ tenure is defined in the HEC ordinance,” said an official at the HEC, requesting anonymity.
According to the letter, an extension, if required, in the tenure of existing MP scale officers will be extended, if the performance evaluation committee finds their performance satisfactory.
Currently, there are six MP scale officers at HEC, whose future at the commission seems uncertain. Previously, they were granted extensions after the initial two-year period if decided by the HEC’s board of governors.
Interestingly, there are three committees that have been formed to date, including one by HEC in 2009 and another in May 2012.
Another HEC official told The Express Tribune that the latter has no laws and prescribed rules even 12 years after it was formed. “For instance, there is confusion about the controlling authority as mentioned in the HEC Ordinance, which defines it is as the PM, but HEC officials reiterate that it is an autonomous body and nobody has the authority to give it directives,” said an official at the human research and development department.
He said the HEC was selective in its claim about being an independent body but when employees raise issues related to promotion, they are told to come up with orders from the Establishment Division and Finance Division.
HEC Chairman Javaid Leghari told The Express Tribune that he had not seen the letter as yet, so he could not comment on it. “For the new ED, we will follow the SC’s directions.” There is a difference between the appointing authority, a term that appears in the letter and the controlling authority which is the PM, he added. “The appointing authority is the HEC’s 17-member commission.”
The Establishment Division in October 2012 sent a letter to the HEC and termed all appointments illegal because the extensions, the letter read, were not made with approval from the controlling authority, which is the PM. HEC’s top officials were of the view that it had the right to decide the commission’s affairs.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 2nd, 2013.