The Supreme Court has decided that a person’s daughter does not become unjustified for a government job during her father’s quota after her marriage.

“Marriage to a woman has no bearing on her financial independence. Just as a son can be hired during her father’s job quota after marriage, a daughter can too,” said Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

Justice Shah led a division bench that also included justice at Har Minallah, who on Monday heard 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 (KP) quoted a lawyer a decision from the former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who said government staff’s children cannot get jobs on a preferential basis.

Justice Shah declared that SC’s decision is from 2024, while the current case ahead of it. “The decision does not apply retrospectively. How can you reject the woman after setting her up?”

The Attorney General claimed that when the woman is married, she is no longer eligible for employment instead of her late father. Justice Shah asked the state’s lawyer where it is written in the law that if a daughter gets married, she becomes unjustified for employment after her father’s death.

The bench later accepted the petition’s petition and noted that a detailed judgment would be handed down on women’s financial independence and the Supreme Court’s decision on children’s quota later.

The same bench also accepted the petition of someone who did not get a job in the KP police maternity just because he was once involved in a drug case.

During the consultation, the KP General Attorney informed the court that the petitioner had been charged with the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2021 for alleged possession of “ice” methamphetamine.

He said that when the petitioner had a criminal case against him, he no longer maintained a “good character” according to the police rules and was not suitable for recruiting police.

Justice At Har 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 justified questioning is questioned. If the contractor’s crime was so serious, why was he acquitted in the investigation stage?” asked Justice Shah.

The Attorney General stated that it was the prosecution 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.