ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has ruled that a person’s daughter does not become ineligible for a government job under her father’s quota after her marriage.
“Marriage of a woman has no bearing on her financial independence. Just as a son can be hired under his father’s job quota after marriage, so can a daughter,” said Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
Justice Shah was leading a division bench also comprising Justice Athar Minallah which on Monday was hearing a petition filed by a Zahida Perveen against a government department’s decision not to hire her after her father’s death in view of her marriage.
During the hearing, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) advocate general cited a decision by former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa which said government employees’ children cannot be given jobs on a preferential basis.
Justice Shah stated that the SC’s decision in question is from 2024, whereas the current case predates it. “The ruling does not apply retrospectively. How can you dismiss the woman after hiring her?”
The advocate general argued that since the woman is married, she is no longer eligible for employment in place of her late father. Justice Shah asked the state law officer as to where it is written in the law that if a daughter gets married, she becomes ineligible for employment after her father’s death.
The bench later accepted Perveen’s petition, noting that a detailed judgment would be issued regarding women’s economic independence and the Supreme Court’s ruling about children’s quota later.
The same bench also accepted the petition of a person who was not given a job in the K-P police department just because he was once implicated in a drug case.
During the hearing, the K-P advocate general informed the court that the petitioner had been charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2021 for allegedly possessing “ice” methamphetamine.
He stated that since the petitioner had a criminal case against him, he no longer maintained a “good character” under police rules and was not suitable for police recruitment.
Justice Athar Minallah asked why the person should be punished for it for the rest of his life when he has been discharged from the case.
“It is an absurd logic that even if a person is not proven guilty, his eligibility is still questioned. If the petitioner’s crime was so serious, why was he acquitted during the investigation stage?” asked Justice Shah.
The advocate general stated that it was the prosecution department that acquitted him and not the police department.
Justice Minallah questioned why a person should suffer consequences for the rest of his life if he has been acquitted in a case. The court approved the petitioner’s request for recruitment as a constable.
