SUST Lecturer Alleges Irregularities in Gold Medal Nomination

A lecturer at Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST) has alleged that the university did not follow University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines in selecting candidates for the Prime Minister's Gold Medal. Sanjida Akter, a lecturer in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (BMB), claims that another candidate was finally nominated without considering the actual marks of two candidates who had the same CGPA.

She made the allegations at a press conference at the SUST Press Club office on Saturday afternoon. She also raised questions over changes to the initial nomination, the preservation of academic marks and the submission of documents for a subsequent review.

In her written statement, Sanjida said she and another candidate had the same CGPA and later joined the same department as lecturers. According to the UGC guidelines issued in 2017 and 2025, she said, the percentage of marks or actual marks should be considered when candidates have equal CGPAs.

Reviewing the records preserved by the department, she found that she had scored 40.25 marks more than the other candidate in 45 of the 63 undergraduate courses, she claimed.

Sanjida alleged that the other candidate was finally nominated without considering the actual marks. When she sought verification of the marks in all courses from the university's Controller of Examinations office, she was told that the records were not available there, she said.

“Why should a student be deprived of her rightful entitlement because the university office has not preserved the marks? I received a UGC merit scholarship in 2021 after securing first place among all departments of the same faculty. Why should I be denied my legitimate claim?” she said.

She added, “In 2022, the department initially nominated me and sent the documents to the Dean's Office. But later, another candidate's name was sent to the UGC instead of mine. I have never been able to find out how that happened.”

Sanjida also said she had not received clear information from the Dean's Office or the Controller of Examinations about whether her required documents were submitted on time following the UGC's review letter in June 2026.

She alleged a lack of impartiality throughout the process. Despite meeting the department chair, dean, controller of examinations, registrar and vice-chancellor several times and submitting written applications, she said she had not received a specific resolution. She also claimed that administrative officials had provided unclear explanations of the basis for the decision.

She said she had submitted written complaints to the UGC chairman on 9 August and again later. At the press conference, she called for a fair investigation under UGC guidelines and a transparent reassessment based on the actual academic records.

“I am not opposing anyone personally. I am demanding a transparent reassessment based on the actual academic records and a fair investigation into the entire matter to ensure justice,” she said.

Asked about the allegations, BMB Department Chairman Professor Abdullah Al Shoaib said he was aware that Sanjida had initially been nominated.

I was aware that Sanjida Akter had been nominated initially. The UGC has now asked for complaints, if any, as part of the review. I have heard that Sanjida Akter has filed a complaint. The UGC will now examine it. The department does not have the marks for every course. Many courses are non-major courses. Those records may be available at the Controller of Examinations office,” he said.

Acting Registrar Kalam Ahmed Chowdhury could not be reached for comment despite repeated phone calls.

Controller of Examinations Md Mahbub Hossain said, “There is nothing for us to do here. We provide the marks as submitted by the department.” However, he did not give a clear answer as to whether the office stores students' marks for every course.

Professor Md Faruk Mia, Dean of the Faculty of Biological Sciences, said he was unaware of Sanjida's initial nomination and was not serving as dean at the time.

He said, “Both candidates have the same CGPA. The university did not have the actual marks for all courses either. In this situation, the committee followed a standard and submitted a result to the university authorities. The comparative positions of the two candidates were determined by reviewing semester-wise results and other relevant information. I do not know whose name the authorities subsequently sent to the UGC.”

Vice-Chancellor Professor Khairul Islam said, “A committee had been formed on this issue before my appointment. After I took office, Sanjida Akter came to me. I forwarded the matter to the dean for another review. They reviewed it again in accordance with the UGC guidelines. That is what we sent to the UGC.”

//DBTech/BDNS/SMP/MIST//