HEC committee finds executive director’s performance unsatisfactory

The Federal Higher Education Commission (HEC) has called for a commission meeting on Wednesday, May 21, in which Executive Director Dr Zia-ul-Qayyum is likely to be removed from his post.

Highly informed sources told The News that the second meeting of the committee to review the performance of Dr Qayyum was held on Tuesday under the chairmanship of Chairman Dr Mukhtar Ahmed. In the meeting, Dr Qayyum’s performance was declared unsatisfactory and he was held responsible for the extraordinary delay in the purchase of one hundred thousand laptops worth Rs11 billion.

According to sources, this matter will now be presented in the commission meeting on Wednesday, and if approved, Dr Qayyum can be removed from his post. According to sources, Rs 18 billion was set aside to provide free laptops to students, after which a tender of Rs 11 billion was awarded.

However, there was allegedly a dispute between the chairman and the executive director over this and its purchase was delayed, which intensified when HEC Chairman Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed, whose extended term ends at the end of July this year, called a meeting on Tuesday to “review the performance of the ED” where the ED’s performance was termed unsatisfactory.

The post of ED is very important as it acts as the principal accounting officer of the HEC, which deals with about 130 development and non-development budgets of the commission annually. According to sources, the two officials had issues with each other on several administrative matters and had differences over projects funded by billions of foreign aid and the purchase of laptops.

It may be recalled that when The News spoke to Dr Mukhtar Ahmed about this matter, he said that Dr Zia-ul-Qayyum was appointed executive director during his tenure, but he did not disagree with his chairmanship at that time.

He said that this was a routine meeting to review the performance of the ED. This meeting should have been held long ago, but the ED submitted its report after a delay of three and a half months and tried to make it controversial by objecting to the meeting of the committee chaired by him.

On the other hand, Dr Qayyum wrote a letter to the commission members, demanding that the chairman be prevented from presiding over the meeting of the performance review committee, saying that this was a clear conflict of interest and raised concerns about the impartiality of the process.

The letter states that many administrative and financial decisions have been and are being taken without involving the office of the executive director, a practice that not only undermines the sanctity of governance protocols but also violates the commission’s ordinance.