IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.797 of 2013   
(Against judgment dated 27.2.2013 
passed by the Lahore High Court 
Lahore in I.C.A. No.89 of 2011) 
 
 
Province of Punjab through Executive District 
Officer (Education) Rawalpindi & another 
 
  
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Ruqia Islam 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, 
Additional Advocate General Punjab. 
 
Ikram Abbasi, L.O., C.E.O. 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
In Person  
 
Date of hearing: 
23.1.2020. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Ruqia Islam, 
respondent herein, figured at Sr. No.15 of the merit list of 
successful candidates for the post of Educators in pursuance to 
advertisement dated 7.10.2008; she alongwith other female 
teachers was, however, denied assumption of charge in the 
Government Boys  High School Thata Khalil, Taxila, purportedly, 
on the basis of Policy No.SO (S-IV)2-34/2018 dated 23rd of August, 
2008; relying upon an earlier judgment of the High Court, striking 
off an identical policy, she successfully impugned departmental 
denial through Writ Petition No.2700 of 2002; the High Court vide 
judgment dated 29.3.2011 directed the department to consider her 
for appointment in the aforesaid educational institution. An Intra 
Court Appeal by the Province was dismissed vide impugned 
Civil Appeal No.797 of 2013 
 
2
judgment dated 27.2.2013, vires whereof are being assailed 
through the present appeal by leave of the Court. 
2. 
 
Learned Additional Advocate General Punjab contends 
that in the face of the Recruitment Policy of Educators in the 
Government Schools 2008-2009, placing complete ban on the 
appointment of female candidates to apply against any category of 
post in Boys High/Higher Secondary School, the High Court had 
no jurisdiction to direct the department to accommodate the 
respondent in a school meant for boys; he next argued that the 
impugned policy is well within the remit of law inasmuch as it is 
designed to ensure a conducive educational environment without 
offending the principle of equal opportunity; he has invited 
attention to the eligibility of female candidates for the post of 
Elementary School Educator and Senior Elementary School 
Educator (Science/Arts) in Boys Primary and Middle Schools to 
argue that the impugned policy is balancedly founded upon 
reasonable classification, recognized by law to appropriately 
accommodate female teachers; he placed reliance on the cases 
reported as Asadullah Mangi and others Vs. Pakistan International 
Airlines Corporation and others (2005 SCMR 445) and Dossani 
Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Limited (PLD 2014 
Supreme Court 1) to conclude that the High Court had no 
occasion to interfere with an administrative policy affair.   
3.  
 
Heard. 
4. 
 
We are not impressed by the position taken by the 
learned Additional Advocate General Punjab nor have found his 
reliance on the supra judgments, relevant to the facts of the 
present case, being rendered in an entirely different contextual 
backgrounds. In the supra case of Abdullah Mangi & others, 
candidates for the job of flight stewards, despite initial selection 
and training, nonetheless, were found by the respondent-air line, 
ineligible on account of their failure to successfully compete with 
their competitors and as such the argument of discrimination by 
the Court was repelled. Similarly, case of Dosani Travels Pvt. Ltd. is 
structured upon vastly distinguishable facts as well as issues 
arising therefrom. Before us is a female, otherwise eligible on all 
fours, being denied a position despite having successfully 
Civil Appeal No.797 of 2013 
 
3
competed for the job as an Educator in the same category of 
post/functional group in Boys High/Higher Secondary School, 
however, with a relegated opportunity to serve in the same capacity 
in the primary and middle sections. The foregoing stipulation/ 
classification, founded on her gender alone, apparently sans any 
rational basis except for a dogmatic and subjective belief that she 
would not be able to handle students placed in a slightly higher 
age group, an apprehension oriented more chauvinistically than on 
any objective foundation, therefore, the impugned policy cannot be 
viewed as prudent or expedient nor reflects intelligible differentia so 
as to qualify the precondition of being reasonable. On the contrary, 
it 
is 
grievously 
retrogressive 
besides 
being 
violative 
of 
Constitutional commands.  
5. 
 
Half of the human resource in the Republic comprises 
of women; they are mentoring, par excellence in every walk of life; 
it is a treasure which must be utilized for a better future. The 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan preambles rights 
that include equality of status as well as of opportunity; Article 27 
reads as under:- 
 
“No 
citizen 
otherwise 
qualified 
for 
appointment in the service of Pakistan shall 
be discriminated against in respect of any 
such appointment on the ground only of 
race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place 
of birth …….”  
 
Under the Principles of Policy, it is further emphasized in Article 34 
of the Constitution that:- 
 
“Steps shall be taken to ensure full 
participation of women in all spheres of 
national life.”  
 
The Constitution commands the Government to take meaningful 
and effective steps and formulate policies conducive to tap this 
most important human resource by ensuring congenial working 
environments, free from harassment or discrimination so as to 
facilitate female participation in the national life for a better and 
Civil Appeal No.797 of 2013 
 
4
prosperous future. These cherished goals envisaged by the 
Supreme Law cannot be set at naught through “policies” inherently 
flawed as well as discriminatory. A policy manifestly inconsistent 
with the Constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and 
discriminatory inter se the populace is not immune from judicial 
review. View taken by the High Court, being well within the remit 
of law, does not call for interference. Appeal fails. Dismissed.  
 
 
 
  
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
23rd January, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Ghulam Raza/- 
