The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the office to supply copies of the comments filed by the provincial universities & boards department and the University of Karachi to the petitioner who has challenged the PhD and MPhil programmes in physical therapy.
Petitioner Sunil Kumar said he had applied for the PhD physiotherapy programme on July 12, 2024, and had been declared eligible in the theory test and the interview, but his final interview result had been shown as withheld.
Kumar said that presently, Chairman Dr Basit Ansari is PhD in health & physical education and not in the relevant field, but it is clear that a PhD holder in physical education & sports sciences is also irrelevant for a PhD in physical therapy.
He claimed that KU intentionally wants to confuse the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in terms of physical education and physical therapy. He said the HEC had issued a no-objection certificate (NOC) to offer PhD in physical therapy with the faculty members who had done PhD in health & physical education and physiology.
He said that under the HEC policy of the PhD degree programme, at least three full-time faculty members holding PhD degrees in the relevant field should be appointed to offer the new PhD programme.
He also said the appointment of all three members in the faculty is a clear violation of the HEC policy guidelines, so the physical therapy PhD and MPhil programmes at KU are not in accordance with the law.
He requested the court to declare the PhD and MPhil programmes in physical therapy being conducted by KU as illegal and in violation of the HEC policy.
KU and the physical education & sports sciences chairman, however, questioned the maintainability of the petition, saying that no illegality has been committed by the university.
They said the curriculum/programme has been approved by the board of studies, the board of faculty and the academic council, and the PhD physical therapy programme facilitated by the HEC has been approved in terms of the NOC.
The respondents said the HEC has issued an NOC in accordance with the approved policy, and no illegality has been committed as being claimed. They said the petition is not maintainable, and sought its dismissal.
After taking the comments on record, the court directed the office to provide copies of the comments to the petitioner, and adjourned the hearing until May 14.
