LAHORE: The Punjab Information Commission has directed the Higher Education Department (HED) to disclose records related to the recent vice chancellor selection process at the Islamia University Bahawalpur (IUB), ruling that the information does not fall within the exemptions provided under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013.
The order, issued jointly by Chief Information Commissioner Muhammad Malik Bhulla and Information Commissioner Bushra Saqib, came on a complaint filed by Naeem Khan, who alleged that the HED had refused to provide information despite repeated requests under the RTI law.
The complainant had limited his request to three specific items in his original application: the list of eligible candidates shortlisted for interviews by the IUB VC search committee; the consolidated merit list showing marks from academic shortlisting criteria and interviews for all applicants, including himself; and the names of the top three candidates recommended to the Punjab government after completion of interviews in August 2024.
According to the order, the HED’s Public Information Officer (PIO) declined disclosure through a written reply dated May 8, 2025, invoking Section 13(1)(b) and (c) of the RTI Act — which allow refusal where disclosure is likely to harm legitimate privacy interests or involves legally privileged information or breach of confidence. The PIO further cited a July 2, 2020 Law Department opinion, given in another VC appointment case, which advised that the minutes of such meetings and summaries for the chief minister fell within the exemptions.
The Commission found the reliance on that opinion misplaced, noting that the complainant had not sought the minutes of meetings or inter-departmental advice but only factual records identifying the shortlisted candidates, the evaluation criteria applied, the marks awarded to each candidate, and the top three recommendations forwarded to the government.
It observed that such information reveals the method and standards used in a competitive selection and is part of the transparency obligations under the RTI Act.
The order underscored that the respondent had failed to demonstrate how disclosure would harm any candidate’s legitimate privacy interest or why the records should be considered legally privileged. It added that the requested material did not involve any advisory communications, legal opinions, or confidential exchanges between departments, but instead constituted outcome-oriented records of a public recruitment process.
Referring to the recent judicial precedents, the Commission cited the Islamabad High Court’s judgment of December 3, 2024 in Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission vs Federation of Pakistan, the Sindh High Court’s March 13, 2024 ruling in Zahid Hussain and 15 others vs Province of Sindh and others, and the Supreme Court’s February 22, 2017 judgment in Suo Moto Case No. 18 of 2016.
In all three cases, the courts had emphasised that the marks awarded in the evaluation and interview processes should be proactively disclosed to promote merit and accountability.
The Commission concluded, “No piece of the said information seems to be hit by any of the exceptions mentioned in Section 13(1) of the RTI Act, 2013” and that the respondent public body’s refusal was not substantiated in the law.
Allowing the complaint, the Commission ordered the HED to provide soft copies of the requested records to the complainant via the same email address used to file the RTI application, under intimation to the Commission itself.