Fourth time lucky?: CDA asks officials to get degrees verified on their own

According to CDA Finance Wing estimates for October, the entire exercise would cost Rs7.2 million.


Danish Hussain September 20, 2013
CDA officers of grade 17 and above have been asked to verify their credentials on their own and submit proof of attestation to the civic agency within two months. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD:


After a meeting on October 23, 2012, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) board announced that the degree verifications of civic agency employees would be completed within a month.


It was decided that officials should submit their educational credentials to the CDA, who would make the requisite arrangements for verification from the respective boards, universities or Higher Education Commission (HEC).

After a month, the civic agency’s Human Resource Directorate only received documents from a handful of officials. Thereafter, the CDA announced a handful of final submission deadlines that lapsed one-after-the-other, with officials providing the same excuses for delays.

In the first week of September this year, a fourth circular was issued, but this time with different conditions.



CDA officers of grade 17 and above have been asked to verify their credentials on their own and submit proof of attestation to the civic agency within two months. They have also been told they are eligible to apply for reimbursement of any amount spent on the verification process.

CDA Administration Member Munir Chaudhry told The Express Tribune that attestation expenses would run into the millions. “Given the civic agency’s current financial situation, we have asked officers to verify their credentials at their own cost,” he said.

According to CDA Finance Wing estimates for October, the entire exercise would cost Rs7.2 million. Earlier, during the first phase, the wing had released Rs600,000 for degree verifications of around 1,600 officers of BS-16 and above. However, the funds were transferred back into the kitty as they were not used within the stipulated time.

During the outgoing Pakistan People’s Party-led government’s tenure, several CDA employees were recruited despite having not adhered to the civic agency’s required procedures, said a senior official.

Complaints about the presence of fake degree holders in the CDA’s cadre have also been lodged with the chairman’s office in the past.

The Express Tribune had earlier reported that a CDA official who secured a job on the basis of a fake degree in 2008 had been drawing a salary and other privileges equivalent to a grade-18 officer.

Shariq Hafeez Khan was appointed as Arts and Craft Village manager in 2008 on the recommendation of a non-governmental organisation, the Indus Heritage Trust.

Khan had submitted an MBA degree he had allegedly obtained from the University of California, (UC) Irvine at the time he was hired.

A letter issued by the UC Irvine registrar’s office, which is available with The Express Tribune, states, “All four officials’ signatures [on the transcript] are incorrect or forged.”

The university administration pointed out six inconsistencies in the degree Khan submitted. The student identification numbers on UC Irvine degrees do not include letters and are eight digits long. The registrar’s signature is also missing from the degree.

“There is no record of a student with the name [Shariq Hafeez Khan] having attended the University of California, Irvine. The diploma and transcript Mr Khan provided were not issued by the university,” said UCI Student Services Specialist Winnie Rafael when asked to confirm the authenticity of the degree Mr Khan had submitted.

When contacted, Khan defended the legitimacy of his degree, claiming the university’s administration did not keep records of students who graduated 20 years ago.

“Even if we assume my degree is fake, it is not mandatory for a director to be an MBA holder,” Khan added.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 21st, 2013.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ