HEC Faces Questions After Nominating Muhammad Murtaza Noor to University Board
Earlier HEC public notice stated Muhammad Murtaza Noor was no longer associated with the Commission; the latest nomination has prompted calls for official clarification.
ISLAMABAD: Questions have emerged regarding governance and administrative consistency within the Higher Education Commission (HEC) after the commission reportedly nominated Muhammad Murtaza Noor as its representative for the 24th meeting of the Board of Governors of The University of Faisalabad, despite an earlier HEC public notice stating that he was no longer associated with the commission.
An official HEC public notice issued previously stated that Muhammad Murtaza Noor’s contract as Project Manager (Social Sciences/Media) ended on November 30, 2013. The notice further stated that he was no longer authorized to undertake any activity on behalf of HEC and advised the public not to deal with him as an employee or representative of the commission.
However, according to a more recent HEC memorandum, Muhammad Murtaza Noor has been nominated to represent the commission at the University’s Board of Governors meeting.
The apparent difference between the two official documents has generated discussion among education stakeholders and governance experts regarding the legal and administrative basis of the nomination, as well as the process followed in selecting representatives for statutory university bodies.
Observers say the issue is not necessarily about an individual’s background, but about ensuring consistency, transparency, and clarity in official appointments made by public institutions.
A media query was sent to the Higher Education Commission seeking clarification on the legal status of the nomination, the applicable eligibility criteria, and whether the earlier public notice had been superseded or withdrawn.
According to the information provided, the HEC Media Wing acknowledged receipt of the inquiry and stated that the matter would be referred to the relevant office for an official response. However, no detailed reply had been received at the time this report was filed.
Until an official clarification is issued, questions regarding the apparent inconsistency between the earlier public notice and the recent nomination remain unresolved.
