What ails universities in K-P?

Express Tribune

27-03-2025

The writer is a former Secretary to Government, Home and Tribal Affairs Department and a retired IGP. He can be reached at [e-mail]
Listen to article
Recent news of dismal performance of candidates in various competitive examinations speaks volumes of the deteriorating standards of higher education in our universities. Not a single candidate from the lawyer's quota passed the last year's examination for additional sessions judges. Only 9 candidates qualified for the 80 seats of civil judges.
No wonder the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council requested the Peshawar High Court to relax the English language requirement for the additional sessions judges screening test. Out of the 598 candidates, 139 did not pass the English part. Similarly, only 408 candidates out of the 28,024, a mere 2.96%, passed the written CSS exam. That means students graduating from universities have the degree but not the knowledge to do well in competitive exams.
The question is: what has gone wrong?
As an engine of change, universities with quality education act as a propeller, navigating the nation to the shores of progress and development.
The tall claims of universities in their vision and mission are mere words without much of substance in them. 'Quest for Excellence', the motto of a university in District Swabi, is pleasing on the ears, but that is all that is there to it. While one may argue that the university aspires be there, most do not have the logistics and resources available to achieve such ambitious goals.
The career and professional growth; addition to human knowledge; contribution to the cultural, social and economic growth of society through ground-breaking research are perhaps unrealistic goals most universities set for themselves. They promise more than they can actually deliver.
One reason for the poor performance of universities is the lack of good governance which requires adherence to the law set for universities in the Constitution of the country, the HEC guidelines and the Act that governs them. Though the preamble to the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012 postulates reconstitution and re-organisation of "universities to further improve their governance and management by ensuring accountability, transparency and giving due representation to all stakeholders in decision-making, so as to enhance the quality of higher education in the province", in reality the performance of universities has declined.
Contrary to the set standards, universities offer programmes, even MPhil and PhD, without regular faculty. To add insult to injury, some of them offer degree programmes without accreditation. Though the Act envisions structural changes, good governance and good quality education, universities do not deliver the expected goods. Arguably, vice chancellors are the pivots, but the procedure of their selection suffers from serious flaws.
The search committee does not take into account candidates' previous achievements. The past achievements and quality of a candidate's work should matter, not the size of their CV.
The legal framework promises autonomy, integrity and efficiency. However, the effectiveness of governance largely depends on leadership, high moral standards, particularly of the vice chancellor, registrar, treasurer and controller of Examination. Most of these officers seek their positions through connections, not merit, which is why they most easily succumb to internal and external pressures at the cost of quality. Keeping these positions filled through ad hoc arrangements makes these officers more vulnerable.
Although recent amendments to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act now require registrars to be appointed from within the administrative cadre of universities, this requirement is often bypassed to accommodate hand-picked candidates. For example, the University of Swabi's statutes specify that the librarian must hold a PhD in Library Science and be promoted from within the university library's cadre. In other words, a librarian cannot be posted to other office, not in accordance with his or her job description. This principle is meant to ensure merit-based appointments.
Similar rules are disregarded in the appointment of registrars also.
Appointments of vice chancellors through connections in utter disregard of merit leads to poor governance and dismal administrative performance - something that impacts the quality of education and research in universities. Such vice chancellors are likely to gratify their patrons more than strengthen academics, governance and quality of education.
Moreover, appointing scores of redundant teaching and non-teaching staff in universities creates unnecessary financial burden on universities. Such appointees resort to litigation seeking regularisation of their services despite the fact that there is no such provision in the laws of universities.
Women University of Swabi is a case in point, where the contracts of many of the members of the faculty and administration have expired. In this respect, the Peshawar High Court dismissed a petition filed by more than 50 contractual employees of the university. These petitioners were seeking regularisation of their services. The High Court declared the instant writ petition "not maintainable" as well as "meritless" and thus it was dismissed.
The judgement and laws are clear. Even the Syndicate, the Senate and the Chancellor cannot extend the contract beyond the period stipulated in the Act. Consequently, the services of those who completed their term of appointment, as per their contract, stand terminated.
In view of the aforementioned observation, the right course is to follow the HEC guidelines, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University Act, 2012, and the statutes made thereunder in letter and spirit, and put an end to ad hocism. Universities ought to have permanent vice chancellors and other officers in accordance with the laws of the universities.
Stop-gap-arrangements will only worsen the falling standards of education and governance in universities. With a consistent permanent set-up, one can hope that universities are likely to deliver some of the promises they make in their mottos. No society can afford mediocrity in the appointments of leaders for institutes of higher learning. We cannot afford to appoint vice chancellors through networking who gratify their patrons.