AIOU recruitment process declared non transparent …

Islamabad: A controversy has emerged over the recruitment process of Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) after the Wafaqi Mohtasib declared that the selection process for senior academic positions lacked transparency and directed the university to cancel appointments and repeat the process.

The decision came after a complaint filed by a female complainant, who challenged her exclusion from the shortlist for Professor and Associate Professor positions despite claiming she met the required eligibility criteria.

The Wafaqi Mohtasib, after reviewing documents and hearing both sides, concluded that maladministration was established and stated that serious questions were raised about the transparency of the selection process.

The Ombudsman referred the matter to the Vice Chancellor of AIOU with directions to cancel the appointments and conduct the recruitment process again according to proper procedures.

The controversy relates to faculty recruitment advertisements issued by AIOU for Professor and Associate Professor positions.

According to the findings, AIOU advertised several academic positions on 15 September 2024, and received a large number of applications. Officials informed that 388 applications were received for 25 advertised Professor and Associate Professor positions.

The university introduced an Internal Assessment Framework to shortlist candidates before sending applications for further evaluation.

According to AIOU, the decision was taken because evaluating hundreds of academic files through experts would create major financial and administrative difficulties. Officials estimated that external evaluation of dossiers could cost around Rs26 million.

Under the new system, eligible candidates were assessed through multiple stages including vision statement, leadership assessment, psychological assessment, teaching demonstration and screening interview.

The assessment was conducted out of 50 marks, and 24 candidates were recommended for further selection stages. However, the female complainant was not recommended for any position.

The female complainant challenged the process, arguing that the university changed recruitment procedures after the hiring process had already started.

She claimed that according to the original recruitment rules, eligible candidates were required to appear before the Selection Board and that the introduction of an Internal Assessment as an elimination stage had no legal basis.

She also argued that she was not properly informed about all stages of the assessment process.

The complainant stated that she was informed about teaching demonstration and leadership assessment but was not informed about psychological assessment and screening interview.

The complaint also raised concerns over fair hearing rights, claiming that she was excluded from the final process without written reasons or an opportunity to explain her position.

Another serious issue raised was the timing of the Selection Board meeting. The complainant claimed that the Selection Board meeting took place on 10 April 2026, a public holiday, and that the approval process and appointment letters were completed unusually quickly on the same day. She questioned whether the process was properly transparent.

She argued that recruitment rules and selection criteria should not be changed after the recruitment process has started.

The Ombudsman examined the matter and found that the selection process did not appear transparent.

The findings stated that several questions raised by the complainant required attention and that the recruitment process showed signs of maladministration.

AIOU officials had defended the process, saying the Internal Assessment Framework was approved by the university’s Executive Council and applied to the advertised positions.

They said the system was designed to identify the most competitive candidates while reducing time and financial burden.

The case now requires AIOU to report compliance with the Ombudsman’s decision within the given period.

The controversy has raised broader questions about transparency, fairness and recruitment procedures in public sector universities, where senior academic appointments directly affect the quality of education.