OKARA: Within the ordered world of academic administration, where promotion files move through committees and decisions are justified by statute, a sudden, sharp allegation has cut through the procedural calm at the University of Okara. A female assistant professor from the Department of Physics has publicly accused the institution's Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Dr. Sajjad Mubin, of harassment—a charge that strikes at the core of institutional ethics and leadership. The university's rebuttal, however, has not been confined to a simple denial. Instead, it has mounted a formidable defence anchored in a voluminous internal report that meticulously details why the professor’s recent pursuit of promotion was administratively untenable, framing the allegation as a retaliatory measure.
The administration's official response was swift. It categorically rejected the allegations as "baseless and unfounded," stating they appeared to be a strategic response to an unfavourable administrative finding. This set the stage for a deeper examination of the context, revealing a dispute less about interpersonal conduct and more about a rigid clash between individual career ambition and institutional rule enforcement.
The controversy centres on the professor’s appointment under the Tenure Track System (TTS), a framework designed to incentivise research and merit-based advancement with strict, non-negotiable criteria. Appointed as an Assistant Professor (TTS) in September 2019, her case for promotion to Associate Professor was recently subjected to a comprehensive review. The resulting internal HR report, commissioned at the Vice-Chancellor’s directive and reviewed by PakistanStory, constructs a narrative of significant procedural non-compliance.
The Bedrock of the Denial: A Technical Audit
The report’s conclusions are rooted in a technical audit of service records, leave history, and financial documents. Its foremost finding is that the professor falls short of the fundamental requirement for promotion: a minimum of six years of continuous service under the TTS. After a detailed accounting of her leave periods, the audit calculated her net service at approximately five years and six months—a clear deficit against the mandated threshold.
This shortfall, however, is presented not as a mere oversight but as a symptom of broader, systemic violations. The report asserts that the professor availed multiple periods of "Ex-Pakistan" and "Sabbatical" leave. This is identified as a direct contravention of the TTS statutes, which explicitly prohibit faculty directly appointed on the tenure track from availing sabbatical or long leaves, permitting only postdoctoral leave for a maximum of one year. "The leaves availed by her were in violation of the prescribed TTS rules and regulations," the document states, framing the actions as a fundamental breach of her terms of service.
Further compounding these issues, the report details accompanying financial irregularities. It notes that the professor continued to draw her full university salary during these leave periods. Moreover, her salary records reportedly included disbursements for allowances such as Qualification Allowance and Ad-hoc Relief Allowances. This is highlighted as a critical violation, as TTS faculty are contracted under a consolidated, lump-sum salary package approved by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), which expressly excludes such separate components. The implication within the report is one of unauthorized financial benefit derived from an incorrect payroll classification.
The administrative findings extend into the realm of record-keeping. The professor’s official service file is described as disordered, with documents unnumbered and out of sequence, presenting what the report calls “serious discrepancies in the documentation.” It specifically notes the absence of final sanctioning notifications for several approved leave cases from the file. This state of records, the report suggests, obstructs a complete and verifiable account of her service and leave history, raising questions about administrative oversight and completeness.
Crucially, the report characterises the professor’s response to this administrative scrutiny as a form of undue pressure. It documents her repeated use of the Pakistan Citizen’s Portal and direct email communications to the Vice-Chancellor’s office, actions it interprets as an attempt to “exert pressure for her promotion—despite not fulfilling the required TTS criteria.” This framing positions the subsequent harassment allegation as an escalation of these pressure tactics, transforming an administrative dispute into a personal and public confrontation.
The Vice-Chancellor’s Leadership Narrative
In defending Prof. Dr. Sajjad Mubin, the university has pointed not only to procedural details but also to his broader record of leadership. His tenure has been marked by a public focus on expansion and modernisation, which his supporters present as evidence of a dedication inconsistent with the alleged misconduct.
Under his guidance, the university has launched several strategic initiatives. These include plans for a Skills Development Centre, aimed at bridging the gap between academia and the job market, and the introduction of new degree programmes such as a BS in Professional Psychology and a BS in Criminology. These moves indicate an attempt to align the university’s offerings with contemporary societal needs.
On the research front—a domain central to the TTS philosophy—Prof. Mubin’s administration has actively promoted a culture of output and recognition. The university has publicly celebrated the inclusion of its faculty in Stanford University’s “Top 2% Scientists List 2025,” a global benchmark for research impact. The establishment of specialised research centres, including the Centre for Water Informatics & Sanitation (CEWIS) and the Centre for Environmental Studies & Climate Change (CESCC), points to a focused effort to address national challenges through academic inquiry. This record of fostering institutional growth is wielded as a counterpoint to the personal allegation, suggesting a leader consumed by development rather than personal grievance.
