Khalid argued that Dr Kamran had filed a representation against the decision of former provincial ombudsperson to the Punjab Governor under Section 9 of the Act.
They submitted that the governor, keeping in view the facts, had set aside the decision of former provincial ombudsperson and the whole story of sexual harassment was totally baseless and no allegation against Vice-Chancellor had been proved. Therefore, they prayed, the petition was infructuous (ineffective) and not maintainable. Presenting the orders of Punjab governor, they said former provincial ombudsperson had clearly mentioned in her judgment that she could not hear the case of sexual harassment filed by Khujista Rehan but made observations against the vice-chancellor without hearing the VC.
They said Dr Mujahid Kamran in his representation to the governor submitted that Khujista's allegations were against the facts. Moreover, the VC had filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court and the LHC on November 04, 2013 suspended the operation of hearing notice issued by the Ombudsperson to the VC asking him to appear before her on November 05, 2013. They said, however, on November 05, 2013, the VC received a copy of the impugned order to his utter surprise. The VC stated in his representation that the said decision was not sustainable in the eye of law since the Ombudsperson had categorically written that she had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint; therefore, any suggestion given in the said decision was coram non-judice (without jurisdiction). Moreover, the decision was one-sided and reflected solely the version of Khujista Rehan whereas the VC was never allowed to defend himself in accordance with the law and was condemned unheard. The VC also mentioned in his representation that the ombudsperson did not provide certified copy of the record of complaint against him.
The counsels submitted that accepting his representation, the Punjab governor through an order issued on September 23, 2015, has set aside the orders of former provincial ombudsperson to the extent of observations made against the vice-chancellor.