ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has declared the quota policy and packages for government employees’ children as null and void.
The 11-page ruling, penned by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, deemed all policies and packages regarding the quota for government employees’ children “unconstitutional”.
The apex court granted the appeal of the General Post Office (GPO) and annulled the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) 2021 decision.
Furthermore, the top court invalidated the Prime Minister’s Package for Employment Policy and its office memorandum related to the quota.
It also struck down Section 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants Rules 1974 and Section 10 Subsection 4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Rules 1989.
Additionally, it declared Section 12 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Rule 2009 as null and void.
The court ruled that granting jobs to widows or children of government employees without advertisement or open merit contradicts Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 25, and 27 of the Constitution.
In its ruling, the court directed all federal and provincial governments to abolish the policy of providing employment to government employees’ children without advertisement or open merit.
The judicial ruling will not affect the quotas already granted to government employees’ children.
It also clarified that the decision does not apply to the legal heirs of individuals killed in terrorist incidents.
The court stated that the ruling would not impact the packages and policies awarded to the heirs of martyrs. It emphasised that the prime minister does not have the authority to soften the rules regarding the quota.
“Good governance cannot be achieved through unequal treatment,” the court noted.
It added that acquiring jobs under the quota is not only against merit but also discriminatory.
A citizen named Muhammad Jalal approached the court to obtain a Grade IV job on the grounds of his father’s retirement due to medical reasons.
The PHC had directed the appointment of Muhammad Jalal on a contract basis. Subsequently, the GPO filed an appeal against the PHC’s ruling in the top court.
