PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Friday gave a notification to the commonplace advanced education division looking for its reaction to the supplication of the bad habit chancellor of the Women's University Swabi against the 90 days augmentation of her constrained leave by the common lead representative and chancellor.
A seat comprising of Justice Syed M Attique Shah and Justice Sahibzada Asadullah gave the request in the wake of hearing starter contentions of the direction for VC Prof Shahana Urooj Kazmi for the suspension of the office's Aug 20 request for constrained leave augmentation.
The primary request of Prof Shahana against a request directed by the Governor's Inspection Team (GIT) against her and a notice for sending her on constrained leave on May 25, 2021, is now forthcoming with the high court.
The request is documented through legal advisors Syed Akhtar Ali Shah and Daniyal Asad Chankani expressing that there was no ward vested in the Governor's Inspection Team (GIT) under the KP Universities Act, 2012, to embrace any investigation into the undertakings of any of the college.
Prof Shahana of Swabi varsity looks for suspension of request
The applicant's legal advisors said their customer was designated the WUS bad habit chancellor in Mar 2020 for a very long time and in the wake of accepting the workplace, she started dealing with the undertakings of the college in a target way with an emphasis on working on in general administration to improve the nature of schooling.
They said the solicitor had ended a couple of non-performing staff individuals, incorporating those not selected as per the law, however the move wasn't enjoyed by personal stake, which started an attack crusade against her.
The guidance said those components began sending letters against her to the commonplace lead representative, speaker of the get together, and different functionaries with unmerited and unwarranted claims against her.
They included that Mar 24, 2021, the candidate got a letter from the GIT secretary uncovering that the lead representative, apparently going about as the chancellor, had chosen to send the GIT for request.
The direction demanded that the letter being referred to was without any terms of reference of that request.
They said in May, the candidate came to know through media reports that the JIT had tracked down that the applicant had submitted genuine anomalies and lawless acts in arrangements by the solicitor and that she had been requested to go on constrained leave.
The legal advisors said the primary appeal had brought up significant issues of the law, including the legitimate status of the GIT inside the ambit of the University Act, 2012, non-recognition of fair treatment of the law, and the self-assertive exercise of power.
They added that while that appeal was sub judice, the criticized warning was given on May 25 sending the candidate on constrained leave for 90 days.
The direction battled that the court asked the division on May 27 not to give any unfavorable request against the solicitor.
They added that as the time of constrained leave would have been finished on Aug 23 permitting the candidate to continue obligation, the condemned notice was given on Aug 20 broadening that period for 90 days.
The attorneys fought that the augmentation of their customer's constrained leave was in opposition to the law and self-assertive exercise of forces by the public authority functionaries.