Reserved quota

2025 SCMR 1058 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 11 & 25Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 5Disabled/differently-abled, personsAppointmentsReserved quota

Respondents were disabled/differently-abled persons who approached High Court and sought directions against Government of Sindh for their appointment according to 5% quota, reserved under section 5 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973

Validity

Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for empowerment of persons with disabilities, focused on a particular subject

As such Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018 has to be enforced and implemented in letter and spirit across the board without any bias and discrimination

There was no logical justification to cause any interference in judgment passed by High Court merely on the foothold of alleged or purported objectionable portion highlighted by authorities, which was nothing but an amplification in the broader context

High Court had directed that all such persons who had already applied for jobs against vacant situations should have their applications considered at the outset rather than shelved or deferred under the garb or guise of fresh applications submitted for the same purposes by new entrants

High Court also cautioned Deputy Commissioners that any appointment made without inclusion of petitioners, who were differently-abled persons, would not be accepted and would be subject to legal scrutiny and action

Such observations of High Court were logical and did not prejudice interest of the petitioners / authorities in any event but rather served as a guideline to ensure finality and conclusiveness in recruitment process of disabled or differently-abled persons in accordance with the law

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

2025 PLC(CS) 798 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 11 & 25Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 5Disabled/differently-abled, personsAppointmentsReserved quota

Respondents were disabled/differently-abled persons who approached High Court and sought directions against Government of Sindh for their appointment according to 5% quota, reserved under section 5 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973

Validity

Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for empowerment of persons with disabilities, focused on a particular subject

As such Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018 has to be enforced and implemented in letter and spirit across the board without any bias and discrimination

There was no logical justification to cause any interference in judgment passed by High Court merely on the foothold of alleged or purported objectionable portion highlighted by authorities, which was nothing but an amplification in the broader context

High Court had directed that all such persons who had already applied for jobs against vacant situations should have their applications considered at the outset rather than shelved or deferred under the garb or guise of fresh applications submitted for the same purposes by new entrants

High Court also cautioned Deputy Commissioners that any appointment made without inclusion of petitioners, who were differently-abled persons, would not be accepted and would be subject to legal scrutiny and action

Such observations of High Court were logical and did not prejudice interest of the petitioners / authorities in any event but rather served as a guideline to ensure finality and conclusiveness in recruitment process of disabled or differently-abled persons in accordance with the law

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

2025 PLC(CS) 1374 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 11 & 25Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 5Disabled/differently-abled personsAppointmentsReserved quotaPetitioner was appointed on the disabled quota vide Notification dated 26.06.2023

However, the same was withdrawn vide directives dated 22.01.2025 on the basis of an order dated 12.01.2023, passed by the Court in a Civil Petition, on the ground that he did not submit old CNIC to establish that the same had the logo of "Disability" to establish that the petitioner had applied on the disabled quota

Validity

Petitioner was appointed as Junior Elementary School Teacher vide letter dated 07.07.2023 subject to certain terms and conditions

In said letter, it was mentioned that petitioner was appointed on a disabled quota having secured 34 marks in the relevant examination

Fact that the petitioner was disabled was clear from Social Welfare Department's Disability Certificate which was dated many years before his job application

As such the objection to his disability because it was not marked on his CNIC was found frivolous especially as he was appointed on a disabled quota and his disability certificate would have been seen by them

Blanket termination letter/impugned order led to the termination of the petitioner and many others because they did not obtain 40 marks in their examinations

However, it was found that the concerned department by terminating the petitioner through the blanket letter/impugned order misinterpreted that the Court order did not apply to those persons who had been appointed on a disabled quota, who only needed to score 33 marks in the examination and the petitioner scored 34 marks which qualified him through the disabled quota and as such he was wrongly terminated

Case of petitioner did not fall within one of a hard area

40 marks requirement had no relevance to the petitioner who had been appointed on the disabled quota under S. 11(12) of the Sindh Empowerment of "Persons with Disabilities" Act, 2018

Even otherwise, if the concerned department which terminated the petitioner was of the view that he was not a part of the disabled quota despite already having appointed him on the disabled quota they should have served him a notice to that effect before terminating his services, which they did not do

In fact disability certificate of petitioner which pre-dated his appointment was never challenged even in those proceedings and as such by implication it had been accepted by the respondents

Not only impugned orders were found to be without lawful authority and set aside but the concerned department adopted a mean spirited approach to the petitioner which lacked any kind of compassion for a differently-abled person when his case was crying out for compassion especially as he was the only disabled person who qualified for the job which had the effect of leaving the disabled quota unused and undermining its very purpose, i.e. assisting differently-abled persons who face more challenges in life than fully abled persons especially in the work place

Petition was allowed, accordingly.

2021 PLC(CS) 355 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Reserved quotaScope

If the seats against reserved quota (excluding those reserved for minorities) remain vacant, the same would convert into open merit and had to be filled accordingly.

2014 PLC(CS) 48 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 10Federal Public Service Commission Rules for Competitive ExaminationAllocationReserved quota

Appellants were candidates who qualified written test as well as viva-voce of Competitive Examination, 2010 and were included in Punjab quota

Grievance of appellants was that post in each grade had to be considered separately for the purposes of allocation of prescribed merit and provincial quota should be calculated in addition to allocation of seats in open merit

Validity

Claim of appellants that reserved quota should start from excluding open merit seats was not rational

Vacancies earmarked to the province of Punjab were allocated in accordance with prescribed policy

Candidates of Punjab province were allocated against same number of open merit vacancies in various groups/services irrespective of their gender up to overall merit position and only female candidates were allocated against remaining vacancies reserved for women quota of Punjab

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.