Marks Changed, Qualifications Questioned: Probe Flags 71 Gomal University Appointments
DERA ISMAIL KHAN: An investigation report into alleged irregularities in recruitment, promotions and selection procedures at Gomal University has raised serious questions over the appointments and promotions of 71 individuals in grades 18, 19 and 21.
According to the investigation, irregularities were allegedly identified in the allocation of academic and interview marks during various selection processes. In several cases, candidates were reportedly awarded additional marks or had their marks reduced, while questions were also raised over the educational qualifications, professional experience and eligibility of some candidates.
The report highlighted cases in which scrutiny records were either unavailable or could not be traced. Investigators have recommended that the disputed appointments and promotions be verified against original documents, including selection board minutes, academic credentials, professional records and experience certificates.
In one cited case, a candidate’s academic marks were recorded as 21.76 during scrutiny but 31.76 in the selection board minutes, creating an alleged difference of 10 marks. The report also identified other cases involving alleged increases of three, five, six and 15 marks.
Questions were also raised regarding candidates who were allegedly appointed despite not meeting the required qualifications. In one case, the report noted that a candidate did not possess the required PhD. Another case allegedly involved changes to an MPhil degree record and additional marks being awarded for publications, which investigators said could have affected the selection outcome.
The investigation further examined experience marks awarded to certain candidates. According to the report, some individuals allegedly received credit for additional or irrelevant experience despite having less than the required relevant experience. In one case, an individual with around two years of service was allegedly credited with seven additional years of relevant experience. Another case reportedly involved a candidate receiving benefit for eight years of irrelevant experience.
The report also pointed to instances where scrutiny records could not be located despite appointments being finalized. In one case, the selection board minutes reportedly did not contain a decision regarding the appointment of an associate professor and a lecturer, prompting investigators to recommend verification from the original record.
Several cases allegedly involved candidates being selected despite having lower academic merit. The report also questioned an instance in which a candidate received 25 out of 25 interview marks from every member of the selection board.
In another case, an applicant’s initial screening test score of 28 out of 100 was allegedly changed to 51 out of 100, according to the investigation report.
The document further identified cases where candidates were reportedly declared ineligible during scrutiny but were subsequently appointed to positions including lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor and professor.
However, the allegations contained in the investigation report do not, by themselves, establish criminal or legal liability. The final status of the cases would depend on verification of original records, responses from Gomal University and other concerned parties, and any findings by competent authorities or courts.
The investigation has recommended a comprehensive review of selection records, scrutiny documents, board minutes, academic qualifications and experience certificates. It has also highlighted the need to determine responsibility wherever irregularities are established.
The findings have raised significant concerns over transparency and merit in recruitment and promotion procedures at Gomal University, placing the university’s selection processes under renewed scrutiny.
