ISLAMABAD: A controversy has emerged within the Intellectual Property Organization (IPO) as reports suggest that the Ministry of Commerce is pushing for the deputation of a former Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) official, who had already resigned from service over a year ago, to the senior post of Executive Director.
Sources said that Mr. Asfandyar Khattak, who served as Director General (Media) at the CCP, had resigned from his position in June 2024 following an alleged internal conflict with a team member. His resignation was formally accepted by the CCP Commission at the time. However, months after leaving, Mr. Khattak began lobbying for the withdrawal of his resignation and restoration to his previous position, despite no formal reversal of the Commission’s approval.
In an unusual twist, Mr. Khattak reportedly attempted to secure a deputation posting at the IPO in May 2025, submitting what insiders describe as a “shady NOC” purportedly issued by CCP. Under the Establishment Division’s deputation rules, the department seeking an official’s services must make a formal request to the parent organization, following which the head of the organization, not a subordinate officer, issues the release orders.
In this case, however, the IPO never requested Mr. Khattak’s services, and the NOC was issued by a CCP HR officer rather than the Chairman, a clear deviation from protocol. Adding to the confusion, Mr. Khattak reportedly told IPO officials that he was on leave without pay from CCP since June 2024, though CCP records indicate his resignation had been accepted. Officials are questioning under what authority or rules his resignation was ever reversed, if at all.
According to deputation regulations, an officer must be in active service for at least six months before being eligible for deputation, a condition not met in this case. The Ministry of Commerce had earlier intervened to block IPO’s attempt to bring Mr. Khattak on deputation, but sources now claim the Ministry is again exerting influence to get him appointed to the Executive Director position, bypassing procedure and established norms.
Officials familiar with the matter say the case underscores serious procedural lapses and potential misuse of administrative authority, raising questions over governance and transparency in federal appointments.
