ISLAMABAD: The Quaidian Students Federation (QSF) has raised concerns over what it describes as a deepening administrative and academic crisis at Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU), demanding the immediate appointment of a permanent vice-chancellor and a review of major decisions taken under the university’s acting administration.
The federation made these demands during a press conference and peaceful protest, highlighting concerns over prolonged leadership uncertainty, administrative decisions, vacant senior academic positions, student transport, additional fees, campus infrastructure and the handling of student grievances.
QSF called upon the Higher Education Commission (HEC), the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, and the university’s Chancellor to intervene and ensure the appointment of a competent vice-chancellor through a transparent, merit-based process.
According to QSF, QAU has remained without a permanent vice-chancellor for the past eight months, raising questions about institutional stability and accountability at one of the country’s leading public-sector universities.
The federation stated that the incumbent’s first tenure expired on July 6, 2026, while his subsequent extension as acting vice-chancellor ended on October 6, 2026.
QSF argued that prolonged reliance on acting leadership was detrimental to the university’s governance and administrative functioning. It maintained that an institution of QAU’s standing required permanent leadership appointed through a transparent process based on merit and professional competence.
The federation also expressed concern over significant administrative decisions being taken during the acting administration, arguing that such measures required scrutiny to determine whether they fell within the lawful scope of the office.
These decisions reportedly include recruitments, employee reshuffling, the signing of memoranda of understanding (MoUs), promotions, changes in project assignments, the dissolution of appellate committees, disciplinary proceedings against students and the registration of first information reports (FIRs).
QSF demanded a review of these actions to establish their legality, procedural validity and compliance with applicable rules. It maintained that decisions with long-term institutional consequences should be taken within a clear legal and administrative framework.
The federation also drew attention to vacancies in senior academic administration, stating that two of the university’s three dean offices, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, remained unfilled.
According to QSF, these vacancies, alongside the continued practice of assigning multiple positions to the same individuals, have contributed to administrative inefficiencies and difficulties concerning accommodation and academic management.
The federation argued that effective academic governance required clearly defined responsibilities and the timely appointment of officials to vacant positions. It warned that prolonged administrative uncertainty could undermine the university’s academic environment and its capacity to address the needs of students and faculty.
Student transport emerged as another major concern during the protest. QSF objected to the relocation of the university’s transport unit outside the campus, claiming that the change had created security and logistical difficulties for students.
The federation also questioned the imposition of certain university fees and additional charges, arguing that some were inconsistent with applicable rules.
Its objections included charges affecting students who were already registered, transport fees imposed on hostel residents, and summer charges levied on students who were not present on campus during the relevant period.
QSF called for these charges to be examined against the university’s rules and the circumstances of the students concerned. It maintained that financial decisions should be transparent, properly justified and implemented in accordance with established regulations.
The federation’s demands reflect broader concerns about the financial burden placed on students and the need for university administrations to ensure that institutional policies do not impose unjustified costs on the student body.
QSF also questioned the university’s spending priorities, expressing concern over extensive fencing and wall construction while, according to the federation, essential student facilities continued to require attention.
The federation argued that hostels, classrooms, laboratories and other academic and student facilities should receive appropriate priority in the allocation of university funds.
It called for greater transparency and accountability in expenditure, stressing that development projects should respond to the university’s educational requirements and the practical needs of its students.
The federation did not provide a detailed financial breakdown of the projects in its statement. However, it demanded that institutional spending be assessed against the university’s academic priorities and the availability of essential facilities.
The federation further objected to the use of terms such as “illegal occupants” and “criminals” to describe students, arguing that such characterisations undermine their dignity and risk prejudicing the handling of disputes.
QSF called for students to be treated with respect and afforded due process in administrative and disciplinary matters. It also demanded meaningful access to university offices and effective mechanisms through which students could raise complaints and seek remedies.
Particular concern was expressed over what the federation described as the absence of an effective mechanism for addressing faculty harassment and complaints, especially in the context of allegations of harassment and victimisation.
QSF stressed that universities must maintain credible, accessible and impartial procedures for handling grievances, ensuring that complaints are addressed fairly and that those involved are protected against arbitrary treatment.
In its concluding demands, QSF said the cumulative effect of leadership uncertainty, administrative controversies, academic vacancies and unresolved student concerns was undermining QAU’s academic environment, institutional reputation, administrative efficiency and productivity.
The federation urged the HEC, the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, and the Chancellor to take immediate steps towards appointing a permanent vice-chancellor through a transparent and merit-based process.
It also called for an independent and rules-based examination of major decisions taken during the acting administration, with particular attention to their legality and procedural validity.
The demands place university governance and student rights at the centre of the dispute, with QSF maintaining that administrative accountability, transparent decision-making and the protection of students’ interests are essential to restoring institutional stability.
The federation concluded by reiterating its commitment to raising student concerns through collective action and peaceful protest.