Allegations of irregularities have surfaced regarding the recruitment of teachers for the Pharmacy Department at Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University (MBSTU).
The controversy centres on the decision to allow a candidate, initially deemed ineligible, to participate in the examination process and her subsequent preliminary selection, an act that has sparked widespread criticism across the campus.
According to university sources, 34 candidates applied for teaching positions following a recruitment circular published on 12 August last year.
After a thorough screening by the Departmental Planning Committee, 26 candidates were declared eligible, while eight others – including the candidate in question, Safia Afrin – were marked as ineligible or “under consideration” due to incomplete applications.
The primary reason for the initial disqualification of these eight candidates was the absence of the mandatory No Objection Certificate (NOC) required for those already employed in other organisations.
While seven of these candidates remained excluded, Afrin was permitted to sit for the exam and was ultimately selected.
Professor Mizanur Rahman, the then-chairman of the Pharmacy Department and President of the Planning Committee, told TIMES of Bangladesh that the committee had flagged the missing NOCs and sent the files to the Registrar’s office for verification against the original submissions.
“The Registrar’s office never provided us with any feedback,” he stated, noting that despite being the committee president, he was never shown a copy of Afrin’s NOC.
Expressing his astonishment, Professor Rahman questioned why Afrin was granted an opportunity denied to the other seven candidates with the same discrepancy. He maintained that any late submission of documents should have been officially communicated to the Planning Committee.
Dr Mohammad Saiful Islam, a member of the Planning Committee, confirmed that the application sets received from the Registrar’s office did not include an NOC for the candidate. He added that despite multiple inquiries, the Registrar’s office failed to provide any clarifying information or copies.
Further questions were raised by committee member Associate Professor Ishrat Jahan Ira. She pointed out that if an NOC was submitted a day before the viva, it suggests it was not part of the original application, which violates recruitment rules.
Meanwhile, the current Chairman of the Pharmacy Department, Professor Dr Md Ashraf Ali, declined to comment on the matter until the Regent Board convenes.
The timeline of the documents has also come under scrutiny. Social media posts by Safia Afrin reportedly mention two NOCs dated 5 March 2024 and 10 May 2026, yet the official application window was between 12 August 2025 and 8 September 2025.
Responding to the allegations, Afrin insisted she submitted the required certificate on time.
She said, “I submitted the NOC attached to the original application at the time of applying. But why it was not in the documents sent to the Planning Committee, the relevant authorities can say best.”
Despite her stance, a formal written complaint was filed with the University Grants Commission (UGC) by an individual named Rafiqul Islam on 18 May 2026.
Compounding the controversy are allegations regarding the distribution of admit cards. Several candidates claimed they were not issued cards until the day of the exam, with officials citing a lack of the Registrar’s signature.
Curiously, the cards distributed on the exam day bore signatures with earlier dates.
The then-vice-chancellor, Prof Dr Muhammad Anwarul Azim Akhand, denied responsibility, stating that admit card distribution falls under the administrative branch’s purview.
Similarly, the Registrar, Professor Dr Sajjad Waheed, claimed he was unaware of the situation as he was on leave, adding that he had no knowledge of the UGC complaint or any lack of feedback to the Planning Committee.
Prof Dr Abdullah Al Mamun, UGC member (Public Universities), confirmed that the commission has received the complaint. He told TIMES that the matter would be raised in a weekly meeting for review, after which the commission will determine the next course of action.
