Daily Times

President Dr has expressed displeasure over the delay by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) for not attesting the degree of a former student on flimsy grounds and upheld the orders of the Wafaqi Mohtasib, directing HEC to affirm her degree within seven days.

The president also instructed for initiating an inquiry against the delinquent official responsible for wasting precious months of the student.

He issued these directions while rejecting a representation filed by HEC against a decision of the Wafaqi Mohtasib, directing it to attest a female student’s BA degree within seven days.

As per details, Savera Afridi (the complainant) had applied to HEC for attestation of her BA degree and DMC, but she was informed that since the session of her degree was in 2020, it could not be attested as HEC had phased out the two-year conventional B.A/B.Sc. The programme and the universities were not allowed to enrol students in conventional B.A/B.Sc. Programs after the academic year 2019.

Feeling aggrieved, the complainant approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib, who passed the orders in her favour.

The HEC then filed a representation and a review petition with the Mohtasib, which were rejected.

Later, the Commission filed a representation against the orders of the Mohtasib with the President.

The President held a personal hearing of the case and rejected HEC’s representation.

He observed that the complainant was given admission by the University of Peshawar for the session 2019-2020, and the complainant had produced a letter from the University dated 01.09.2022, which showed that the complainant’s session for her BA degree was 2019-2020. She was given admission in January 2020.

He added that since the complainant was given admission by the University for the session 2019-2020 session, there was no fault on the part of the complainant, and she should not suffer for the acts and omissions of the University if it had violated HEC s policy by allowing registrations for such session.

He stated that Wafaqi Mohtasib had rightly observed that the HEC’s responsibility as a regulator was to see whether. As the universities were implementing their decisions, lapse on its part amounted to failing to perform its statutory obligations.

President Alvi held that a student should not suffer because of the inaction of HEC or the university.

He regretted that HEC, instead of taking any action against the University, had put the complainant into an unnecessary ordeal without fault and was not attesting her degree.

The president, therefore, rejected the representation of HEC with the observation that it should reprimand the universities that were not following its guidelines or instructions so that in the future, the students would not suffer because of its inaction.