Deceased son quota: does a married daughter lose it?

Key points

• Rule 10(4) of the KP service rules let the government appoint "one of the children" of a civil servant who died or was permanently incapacitated in service. It says nothing about marriage.
• A Section Officer's letter cannot cut down a rule made under the Civil Servants Act; only the rule-making authority can change it (paras 5 and 6).
• Taking the quota from married daughters but not married sons fails the equality test of Article 25 and the bar on discrimination in service in Article 27 (para 6).
• General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276, 26 September 2024) ended quota appointments without open merit, but kept appointments already made (para 11 of Zahida Parveen).

Karak, 2023: appointed, then removed for being married

Zahida Parveen was appointed a primary school teacher at a government girls' school in District Karak on 17 March 2023, under the deceased son/daughter quota in Rule 10(4). On 15 May 2023 the District Education Officer withdrew the appointment, without a show-cause notice (para 1).

The reason was a 2020 clarification letter from the Establishment Department, which said: "in case the female has contracted a marriage, she loses this right." A 2023 letter added that a married daughter could qualify only if separated from her husband and dependent on her parents. Her departmental appeal went unanswered and the KP Service Tribunal dismissed her appeal on 3 June 2024.

What the rule actually says

Rule 10(4) provides that where a civil servant dies or is permanently incapacitated in service, the appointing authority "may appoint one of the children of such civil servant", or the widow if the child is under age, to a post in Basic Pay Scales 1 to 10, if they hold the minimum qualification (para 4).

The Court read it plainly: the language is inclusive, and "a married daughter falls within the scope of 'one of the children'"; she cannot be excluded only because she is married (para 4).

Why the Supreme Court restored her job

First, power. The Establishment Department had no authority to amend the rule through a clarification; that power belongs to the Governor under section 26 of the KP Civil Servants Act. "Executive fiat cannot override legislative command" (paras 5 and 6).

Second, equality. The letter excluded married daughters "while allowing married sons to benefit under the same provision". The Court found "No intelligible differentia is discernible between a married son and a married daughter", so the exclusion offended Articles 25, 27 and 14 (para 6).

The letters were declared discriminatory, ultra vires and without lawful authority, the Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and the department was directed "to restore the petitioner's appointment with all back-benefits" (para 10). The Court also criticised the Tribunal's phrase that "a married daughter becomes a liability of her husband" (para 12).

One more thing: new quota jobs have ended

In General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276, decided 26 September 2024) the Supreme Court declared rules and policies giving government jobs without open advertisement and merit to the widow, husband or child of a civil servant who dies, or retires because of permanent disability, to be discriminatory and ultra vires the Constitution, and directed governments to withdraw them.

That judgment does not affect appointments already made, and it does not touch packages for the heirs of martyred law enforcement personnel and of civil servants killed in terrorism. Zahida Parveen was appointed in 2023, so her case was unaffected (para 11). For applications made under an older policy and still pending, see Ayaz Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (2026 SCMR 42), where the Supreme Court sent two National Bank applications back to be decided under the bank's policy of the time.

The case at a glance

Facts

A daughter of a deceased civil servant was appointed a primary school teacher in Karak in March 2023 under the deceased quota. In May 2023 the appointment was withdrawn, without notice, because she was married, relying on a 2020 Establishment Department clarification. The Service Tribunal dismissed her appeal.

The question

Can an executive clarification exclude married daughters from Rule 10(4), when married sons remain eligible?

What the Court held

No. A married daughter is "one of the children". The clarification and the 2023 letter were discriminatory, ultra vires and without lawful authority; her termination was void and her job was restored with all back benefits.

Why

An executive letter cannot amend a statutory rule, and treating married daughters differently from married sons has no rational link to the rule's purpose of helping the bereaved family, so it fails Articles 25 and 27.

Limits

The case concerns KP's Rule 10(4) and an appointment made before PLD 2024 SC 1276. It does not revive quota appointments after that judgment.

In the Court’s words

“No intelligible differentia is discernible between a married son and a married daughter that would justify such exclusion”

PLD 2025 SC 529, para 6

“A married daughter remains equally a child of her deceased parent”

PLD 2025 SC 529, para 7

The law it relies on

What this does not mean

• It does not mean anyone can get a quota job today. The Supreme Court ended new quota appointments in September 2024 (PLD 2024 SC 1276).
• It does not mean every quota appointment was valid. The daughter still had to meet the rule's conditions, such as the minimum qualification.
• It does not decide other provinces' rules directly, though the equality reasoning under Articles 25 and 27 applies everywhere.

Questions people ask

Sources

• Zahida Parveen v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, PLD 2025 SC 529 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 17 March 2025), paras 1, 4-7, 10-12
  Married daughter is 'one of the children' under Rule 10(4); exclusion letters void; job restored with back benefits. verified against full text
• General Post Office, Islamabad v. Muhammad Jalal, PLD 2024 SC 1276 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 26 September 2024)
  Quota appointments for families of deceased or invalidated civil servants without open merit struck down; appointments already made unaffected. verified against full text
• Ayaz Ali v. Federation of Pakistan, 2026 SCMR 42 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 17 July 2025)
  Pending applications under an earlier bank policy remanded to be decided under that policy. headnote checked
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Tahir Mushtaq, 2024 SCMR 2069 (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 12 September 2024)
  Reserving jobs for children of retiring government servants offends Articles 25 and 27. headnote checked
• Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 25, Art. 27 text checked in FAI Statute Search, 12 October 2026

Every quote and section above is traced to the full judgment or statute text by an automatic check that runs on every update.

What the reel says