Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. PHOTO: LHC
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court, setting aside an order of the KP military court, ruled that marriage cannot deprive a woman of appointment under the quota reserved for children of civil servants who died or became incapacitated during their service.
“If the marriage of a son does not disqualify him or interrupt the flow of financial benefits to the family, there is no rational basis for holding that the marriage of a daughter should have this effect,” states a 10-page judgment written by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali, while directing the department concerned to reinstate the petitioner’s appointment with full benefits.
He wrote the judgment ruling on a question: whether marriage can disqualify a girl from appointment under the quota reserved for children of civil servants who die or become incapacitated during their service.
“The relief envisaged by the Rule goes to the family through the designated child – whether a son or a daughter – and the marital status of the daughter has no connection with the object of the rule. Any interpretation which denies this possibility infringes the guarantees of equality and non-discrimination of Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution and perpetuates a stereotype that the Constitution itself rejects”, we can read in the judgment.
The petitioner’s mother, Farakh Naz, was an employee of the Department of Education, Government of KP, who retired on medical grounds on 27 April 2022. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as a primary school teacher (12 base pay scale) at Government Girls Primary School, Tatar Khel, Karak District, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, under the quota of deceased or incapacitated employees under the rule 10(4) of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989.
The petitioner was discharging her duties when the Karak District Education Officer suddenly withdrew the order of appointment of the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice, saying that the benefit of appointment under the quota is not available to a woman who has entered into marriage.
The applicant approached the KP Military Court, but her plea was rejected. A division bench of the apex court comprising Justice Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi noted that the rule envisages the appointment of a child of a deceased or incapacitated public servant to provide financial assistance to the family concerned in recognition of the parent’s service to the state.
“Its objective is not to assess the dependency or economic situation of each child, but to ensure that the benefit of employment reaches the family of the civil servant who dies or becomes incapacitated during his service.
“In this context, a son and a daughter are on an equal footing. Both can pass on to the family the economic relief sought, and the choice of one or the other fulfills the purpose of the Rule. The assumption that a daughter, by reason of her marriage, ceases to have connection with or care for her parental family is erroneous and based on outdated social stereotypes.”
The court noted that “we must also firmly dispel, once again, the regressive notion reflected in the clarifications issued by the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Government Establishment Department that a married woman is no longer “a liability” to her father.
“Such a statement is deeply insensitive, as it depersonalizes a woman. The very use of the term ‘responsibility’ to describe a woman reflects a rigidity of patriarchal thinking that has no place in our Constitution. We are amazed that such a term can find its way into official correspondence in the 21st century, more so in a republic that constitutionally guarantees equality, dignity and respect to all its citizens, regardless of gender.
The judgment notes that the Constitution is gender neutral in its recognition of fundamental rights and does not distinguish between a man and a woman, or between a son and a daughter, in the enjoyment of their rights (article 25).
“In fact, it goes further and deliberately discriminates in favor of women by ordering the State to take special measures for their protection and advancement (articles 25, 27 and 34). »
“This constitutional framework recognizes that women have historically faced systemic disadvantage and therefore deserve additional support to ensure substantive equality. Yet, despite this constitutional protection, the petitioner has been denied her legitimate right to the quota reserved for the children of a deceased or incapacitated parent due to their marriage – a denial that is in complete contradiction to the text and spirit of the Constitution.”
