Noman Karim Vs Govt of KP

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

MINGORA BENCH (DAR-UL-QAZA), SWAT

(Judicial Department)

W.P No. 1247-M/2023 and 40 other Writ Petitions Noman Karim

Versus

Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary and others Present:

M/S Abdul Nasir, Yasir Saleem (via video link), Salman Zubair, Umar Khitab, Shams-ul-Hadi, Sabir Shah, Syed Abdul Haq, Clerk of Farid Ullah, Umar Farooq Mohmand (via video link), Muhammad Javaid, Muhammad Bilal Khan, Malik Muhammad Ajmal Khan (via video link), Abdul Qayum, Alam Khan Adenzai (via video link), Muhsin Ul Mulk, Barrister Asad Ur Rehman, Abdul Saboor, Sajid Ullah, Ajmal Zia Khan, Muhammad Nabi, Shah Nawaz Khan and Farid Ullah (Ali Baig Khel), Advocates for petitioners.

Mr. Haq Nawaz Khan, Additional Advocate General for official respondents.

Date of hearing: 01.07.2026

JUDGME NT

QAZI JAWAD EHSANULLAH, J.- By this common judgment, we propose to decide the forty-one (41) connected writ petitions, particulars whereof have, for facility of reference and to avoid unnecessary repetition, been tabulated in the Annexure appended to this judgment, which shall form an integral part hereof. The petitions involve a common question relating to the claim of the petitioners for appointment against the quota reserved for the sons/legal heirs of retired or deceased government employees, as the case may be; therefore, having Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

been heard together, they are being disposed of through this common judgment.

2.Since the factual background of each petition is distinct in material particulars, notwithstanding the common legal controversy involved, the facts of each case are being recorded independently hereunder, in the order reflected in the Annexure appended to this judgment, so as to facilitate proper appreciation and application of the common findings to each individual case.

3.W.P No. 1247-M/2023 (Noman Karim): The petitioner is the son of Fazal Karim, who was serving as Senior Clerk in the Demarcation Forest Division, Swat, and was retired prematurely on medical grounds with effect from 31.08.2005, when the petitioner was still a minor. The retirement order dated 31.08.2005 shows that Fazal Karim was retired on the recommendation of the Medical Board with immediate effect and was allowed encashment of 180 days' pay. After attaining majority and acquiring the requisite qualification, the petitioner applied to respondent No.5, Divisional Forest Officer, Demarcation Forest Division, Swat, seeking appointment as Junior Clerk or Naib Qasid against the quota meant for children of government servants retired on medical grounds under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as “the APT Rules”). Upon non-consideration of his request, he earlier instituted W.P No.797-M/2021, which, along with other connected petitions involving similar claims, was Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

disposed of by this Court through judgment dated 08.12.2021, with a direction that the petitions be treated as representations before the respective Grievance Redressal Committees for decision after affording an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's case was considered by the departmental Grievance Redressal Committee in its meeting held on 02.03.2023, but his claim was declined on the ground that Rule 10(4), as amended on 19.04.2016, could not be given retrospective effect. Aggrieved thereby, he has again invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking appointment against the retired employees' quota.

In the comments filed in the earlier W.P No.797- M/2021, which form part of the present record, the Forest Department acknowledged that Fazal Karim had served as Senior Clerk and had been retired on medical grounds, but resisted the petitioner's claim mainly on the ground that his father had retired in 2005, whereas the relevant provision conferring the claimed benefit was introduced subsequently; hence, according to the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to appointment with retrospective effect. It was further pleaded that Fazal Karim had never applied during his lifetime for appointment of one of his children under the quota and that the petitioner himself had not applied immediately upon attaining majority. The respondents also asserted that no suitable vacancy was available in the Demarcation Forest Division except the post of Tracer, for which the petitioner did not possess the requisite technical qualification. The subsequent Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Grievance Redressal Committee, while considering the matter on 02.03.2023, mainly maintained the same position and declined the petitioner's claim on the ground of non- retrospectivity of Rule 10(4).

In their written comments to the instant petition, respondents No.4 and 5 have reiterated almost the same stance admitting that the petitioner's father, Fazal Karim, had been serving as Senior Clerk in Demarcation Forest Division and was invalidly retired from service. Their main stance is that the petitioner was a minor during the lifetime of his father and was, therefore, not then eligible for appointment; that neither the petitioner nor his father approached the department for appointment against the prescribed quota during the father's lifetime; and that after attaining majority, the petitioner also did not pursue his claim until much later. They further pleaded that no vacancy was available in the Demarcation Forest Division except that of Tracer, being a technical post for which the petitioner could not be considered. It was also asserted that no request for appointment had been received in the office of respondent No.5. The respondents nevertheless acknowledged that the petitioner's case had subsequently been sent to the Grievances Committee pursuant to directions of this Court, but was not entertained on account of shortcomings noticed in its recommendation report. They further relied upon the Supreme Court judgment subsequently abolishing the deceased-son quota.

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

4.W.P No. 1234-M/2025 (Suliman): The petitioner, Suliman, is the son of Misbah Ullah, who was serving in the Health Department as Sanitary Supervisor (BPS-12) and, after rendering more than 33 years of service, was examined by the Standing Medical Board. Vide Medical Certificate No. 8393/M- 3 dated 05.06.2023, the Board found him suffering from “resistant depression” and opined that he may be boarded out of service on medical grounds. The petitioner thereafter applied to the District Health Officer, Swat, on 29.10.2023, seeking appointment as Pharmacy Technician against the quota reserved for children of government servants retired on medical grounds under Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules. In his application, he disclosed his qualification as F.Sc. with Diploma in Pharmacy. His grievance is that despite repeatedly approaching the respondents, his claim has not been considered; hence, through the instant petition he seeks consideration for appointment under the aforesaid quota.

5.W.P No. 638-M/2025 (Irshad Ullah): The petitioner is the son of Sher Bahadar, who was serving as Driver (BPS-07) in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bajaur, and was retired from service on medical grounds with effect from 01.09.2023 vide Retirement Order No. 4807-12/1- 31/Estab/DC(B) dated 05.09.2023. After his father's retirement, the petitioner, being B.A. qualified, applied for appointment as Junior Clerk (BPS-11) against the quota reserved under Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules. His case was placed before the Departmental Selection Committee in its meeting held on Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

02.08.2024, wherein he was found overage by seven years and three months against the prescribed maximum age of 30 years. The matter was thereafter referred to the competent authority for relaxation of the upper age limit and, vide order dated 18.09.2024, the Chief Minister, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, granted him relaxation of seven years, two months and six days, after allowing the admissible three-year relaxation for a candidate belonging to the backward area of District Bajaur, thereby enabling him to compete for the post of Junior Clerk against the aforesaid quota. The petitioner thereafter again approached the Deputy Commissioner, Bajaur, through application dated 19.09.2024, seeking appointment, but according to him, no appointment order was issued despite the age relaxation already granted in his favour. He has, therefore, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking appointment as Junior Clerk (BPS-11) against the retired/medically retired employee's quota.

The respondents admitted in their para-wise comments that the petitioner's father, Sher Bahadar, was serving as Driver (BPS-7) in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bajaur, and had rendered 37 years, 10 months and 23 days of qualifying service. They further admitted that, on the recommendation of the Provincial Standing Medical Board, he was retired on medical grounds. The respondents, however, resisted the petition primarily on the grounds that the petitioner was overage by more than nine years for appointment as Junior Clerk (BPS-11) and that the age relaxation sought on his behalf Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

was beyond the permissible limit. Significantly, the record shows that the petitioner's case for relaxation in the upper-age limit was processed at various levels and the Chief Minister, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, vide order dated 18.09.2024, accorded relaxation of 07 years, 02 months and 08 days for his appointment as Junior Clerk against the quota reserved for children of medically incapacitated/deceased civil servants; however, the respondents maintained that he still remained overage beyond the permissible limit. They also pleaded that, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal, appointments under the deceased/medically retired employees' quota stood discontinued and, therefore, the petitioner's pending case could not culminate in appointment.

6.W.P No. 35-M/2026 (Mst. Bakht Sewa): The petitioner, Mst. Bakht Sewa, was serving as Cook (BPS-04) at Government Post Graduate Girls College, Saidu Sharif, Swat. On account of serious health issues, she was examined by the Standing Medical Board, which, vide Medical Certificate No. 4012/M-3 dated 27.02.2024, found her suffering from persistent high blood pressure and osteoarthritis of both knees and recommended her retirement from service on medical grounds. Her case was thereafter considered by the Departmental Retirement Committee in its meeting held on 04.12.2023, which recommended her retirement, and she was ultimately retired on medical grounds on 26.02.2024. She thereafter applied for appointment of her son, Maaz Khan, against the son quota Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

under Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules; her son also submitted a separate application to the competent authority. The record further reveals that the Principal, Government Post Graduate Girls College, Saidu Sharif, vide letter dated 19.08.2024, forwarded the matter to the Regional Directorate of Higher Education, stating that the petitioner had retired on medical grounds on 26.02.2024, that her son had applied for appointment against the quota, and that the matter had been considered by the committee, which found a vacant post of Cook (BPS-03), but observed that the post pertained to the Girls Hostel and required a female incumbent to perform duties in the best interest of female students. The petitioner, alleging continued non-consideration of her son's claim despite passage of considerable time, has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and appoint her son against any available Class-IV post under the medically retired/compassionate quota.

7.W.P No. 453-M/2026 (Hamid Ali): The petitioner, Hamid Ali, is the son of Bakht Rahman, who was serving as Chowkidar in the Irrigation Department. On account of his deteriorating health, Bakht Rahman applied for retirement on medical grounds and was examined by the Standing Medical Board on 26.06.2024. Vide Medical Certificate No. 10361/M-3 dated 28.06.2024, the Board found him suffering from severe pulmonary disease and opined that he might be retired on medical grounds. Consequently, through office order dated 29.06.2024, he was retired from service on medical grounds Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

with effect from 28.06.2024. The petitioner thereafter applied to the departmental authorities for appointment as Tubewell Operator against the compassionate/son quota in place of his medically retired father. During pendency of his claim, Bakht Rahman died on 01.09.2024. The petitioner asserts that despite repeated applications, his case was not decided, although, according to him, a vacant post of Tubewell Operator was available with the department.

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court through W.P No.1367-M/2025, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 05.11.2025. This Court noticed therein that the petitioner's father had retired on medical grounds on 28.06.2024 and that the claim under Rule 10(4) was affected by the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276). Since a review petition against that judgment was then pending before the Supreme Court, the petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek redress afresh depending upon the ultimate outcome of the review proceedings. Subsequently, the Federal Constitutional Court, vide order dated 27.02.2026, dismissed the review petitions and clarified that the judgment would operate prospectively. Relying upon that clarification, the petitioner has instituted the present petition seeking appointment as Tubewell Operator/Class-IV against the reserved quota.

8.W.P No. 551-M/2026 (Sadiq Khan): The petitioner, Sadiq Khan, is the son of Yaqoob Shah, who was Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

serving as Naib Qasid (BPS-04) in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Swat. Yaqoob Shah, then aged about 51 years, was examined by the Standing Medical Board on 17.11.2021, and vide Medical Certificate No. 16252/M-3 dated 30.11.2021, was found to be suffering from severe apprehension regarding complications of neurological deficit; the Board consequently opined that he could be retired on medical grounds being incapacitated. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner, Swat, vide order dated 06.12.2021, retired him from service on medical grounds with immediate effect, with grant of LPR for a maximum period of 365 days in lump sum. The petitioner thereafter applied for appointment against the quota reserved for the children of government servants retired on medical grounds under Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules. According to the petitioner, despite his applications and availability of vacancies, his claim was not considered.

The petitioner had earlier instituted W.P No.819- M/2024 seeking the same relief; however, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.10.2024 with permission to file a fresh writ petition, if so desired. He has now approached this Court afresh, mainly relying upon the subsequent order dated 27.02.2026 of the Federal Constitutional Court, whereby the challenge arising out of the judgment reported in PLD 2024 SC 1276 was dismissed while dealing with the question of accrued rights and prospective operation of that judgment. On such basis, the petitioner seeks consideration for appointment against Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

a post corresponding to his qualification under the reserved quota.

9.W.P No. 647-M/2026 (Huraira Alam): The petitioner, Huraira Alam, is the son of Muhammad Arif, who was serving as Assistant (BPS-16) in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Swat. Muhammad Arif applied on 01.07.2022 for retirement on medical grounds, whereupon his case was referred to the Medical Board. The Standing Medical Board, after examining him on 06.07.2022, observed that he was suffering from a known case of anxiety disorder, which might affect his daily activities and performance of duty, and recommended his retirement on medical grounds. Consequently, vide order dated 03.08.2022, he was retired from service on medical grounds with effect from 31.07.2022; however, through corrigendum dated 21.10.2023, the effective date of his retirement was corrected to 18.07.2022. The petitioner asserts that he had submitted an application on 04.08.2022 to respondent No.1 seeking appointment under the reserved quota for the children of retired government servants and that his name was thereafter included in the process initiated by the department along with other candidates, but no appointment order was issued in his favour. He has instituted the present petition after the subsequent judicial developments concerning such quota appointments, particularly relying upon the order dated 27.02.2026 of the Federal Constitutional Court and the principle of prospective application of the judgment. On this basis, he seeks consideration of his claim for appointment Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

against a suitable post commensurate with his qualification under the quota applicable at the relevant time. The petitioner's educational documents show inter alia Intermediate qualification and a provisional B.A. result card.

10.W.P No. 711-M/2026 (Muhib Ullah): Petitioner, Muhib Ullah is the son of Naeem Ul Haq, who was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the Health Department vide order dated 11.04.1987 and was subsequently promoted as Office Assistant. According to the petitioner, his father developed multiple ailments, including perforated tympanic membrane, hypertension and ischemic heart disease, whereupon his case was referred to the Standing Medical Board. The Board examined him on 31.01.2024 and declared him incapacitated for further government service. On its recommendation, the competent authority retired Naeem Ul Haq from government service with effect from 31.01.2024, besides sanctioning 365 days' leave encashment.

The petitioner, possessing inter alia a Diploma in Dental Technology, initially applied on 24.04.2024 for appointment against the vacant post of Dental Technologist (BPS-12) under the 100% quota meant for the children of government servants retired on medical grounds. His request was forwarded by the Medical Superintendent to the Director General Health Services for consideration. He subsequently submitted another application dated 30.05.2024 seeking appointment against the vacant post of Store Keeper (BPS-06) under the same quota. The latter request was processed and a Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

committee was constituted vide office order dated 22.06.2024 to make recommendations on his application, with its meeting scheduled for 01.07.2024. The record further reflects that the recruitment process did not reach finality. Through communication dated 25.06.2025, the Health Department informed the Medical Superintendent that the scheduled process/interview had been postponed pursuant to the ban imposed by the Chief Minister on recruitment, and the matter was sent to the relevant quarters for further guidance. Earlier correspondence also shows that the hospital repeatedly sought instructions from the department regarding continuation of the postponed process in the light of subsequent judicial pronouncements. The petitioner maintains that despite processing of his case, no appointment has been made and seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him against the post applied for, or any other suitable post corresponding to his qualification.

11.W.P No. 753-M/2026 (Nizar Ali): The petitioner, Nizar Ali, is the son of Jowhar Ali, who was serving as Chowkidar in the Elementary & Secondary Education Department, District Buner. The service record reflects that Jowhar Ali initially entered service as Chowkidar on 03.06.1998. Owing to his deteriorating health, his case was referred to the Standing Medical Board, which examined him on 23.08.2023 and found him suffering from lumbago sciatica (discogenic lumbar disease) with associated spinal problems; the Board opined that he was unable to continue his government Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

job and might be boarded out on medical grounds. Consequently, the District Education Officer (M), Buner, vide order dated 19.10.2023, sanctioned his retirement on medical grounds under the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, with effect from 23.08.2023.

Following his father's medical retirement, the petitioner, who possesses Matric qualification, applied to the respondents for appointment as Chowkidar/Class-IV against the quota meant for the children of government servants retired on medical grounds. According to the petitioner, despite repeated approaches, his claim remained undecided. He has, therefore, instituted the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him against the post of Chowkidar according to the applicable rules and reserved quota. In support of his claim, he also relies upon the subsequent pronouncement of the Federal Constitutional Court dated 27.02.2026, contending that the earlier Supreme Court judgment affecting such quota appointments operates prospectively.

The petition itself also discloses that the petitioner had earlier instituted W.P No.1367-M/2025 which was disposed of with liberty to revive. The present petition has thus been brought after the subsequent decision dated 27.02.2026 relied upon by him.

12.W.P No. 789-M/2026 (Muhammad Asif): The petitioner, Muhammad Asif, is the son of Muhammad Qasim, who was appointed as PST in the Elementary & Secondary Education Department, District Dir Lower, vide appointment Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

order dated 26.12.1987. Owing to his health condition, Muhammad Qasim was subsequently retired from service on medical grounds vide office order No. 826-29 dated 20.07.2007 with effect from 31.07.2007. After his father's retirement, the petitioner, being the only son and possessing Master's qualification from the University of Malakand, applied to the respondents for appointment against a suitable post under the quota reserved for the children of government servants retired on medical grounds. According to him, however, his application remained pending without any decision.

The petitioner asserts that his claim subsequently remained affected by the judgment of the Supreme Court in PLD 2024 SC 1276, whereby Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules, along with similar quota provisions, was struck down. He relies upon subsequent judicial developments, including the judgment dated 16.09.2025 of the Lahore High Court in W.P No.40681/2025, the Supreme Court order dated 02.09.2025, and particularly the judgment dated 27.02.2026 of the Federal Constitutional Court, to contend that the earlier Supreme Court judgment operates prospectively and does not affect rights which had accrued before 26.09.2024. On that premise, he again approached the respondents, but alleges that his request was declined/not entertained. He has, therefore, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking appointment against any suitable post according to law and the reserved quota.

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

13.W.P No. 913-M/2026 (Muhammad Asad Rahim): The petitioner, Muhammad Asad Rahim, is the son of Rahim Khan, who was serving as Naib Qasid (BPS-04) in the District Judiciary, District Dir Lower at Timergara. On Rahim Khan's request for retirement on medical grounds, the District & Sessions Judge, Dir Lower, vide letter dated 25.07.2022, referred his case to the Medical Superintendent, DHQ Hospital, Timergara, for examination by the Medical Board. The Medical Board examined him on 17.08.2022 and found him suffering from severe depression with psychotic features and post- traumatic stress disorder, observing that despite treatment there was no improvement in his condition and that he was unable to perform his assigned duties. The Board accordingly recommended his retirement on medical grounds. Consequently, the District & Sessions Judge, Dir Lower, vide office order dated 31.08.2022, retired Rahim Khan from government service on medical grounds with immediate effect.

The petitioner, who was born on 16.03.2008, was thus a minor at the time of his father's medical retirement. After attaining the requisite age and possessing SSC qualification, he applied for appointment against a suitable post under the quota reserved for the children of government servants retired on medical grounds. According to him, his application remained pending and no response was received from the respondents. He has now approached this Court relying upon the subsequent judicial pronouncements concerning the prospective operation of the judgment whereby such quota provisions were struck Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

down and seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him against any suitable post under the reserved quota.

14.W.P No. 965-M/2026 (Maaz Ahmad Khan): The petitioner’s father Bashir Ahmad was serving as Primary School Teacher (PST) in the Elementary & Secondary Education Department, District Swat. Bashir Ahmad, then about 59 years of age, applied for retirement on medical grounds and was examined by the Standing Medical Board on 14.09.2022. The Board noticed that he was a known case of left renal tumour (kidney cancer), had received chemotherapy at Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital and was also suffering from diabetes mellitus, asthma and hypertension; finding him unable to continue his duties, it recommended his retirement on medical grounds. The departmental record further reflects that the matter was processed through the competent authorities and, vide office order dated 19.09.2023, the District Education Officer (M), Swat, sanctioned his retirement on medical grounds with effect from 21.09.2022.

The petitioner, possessing Intermediate qualification and an Associate Degree in Arts, applied for appointment against the quota reserved for the children of government servants retired on medical grounds. The record contains his application dated 13.12.2025, addressed to the District Education Officer (M), Swat, wherein he referred to his father's medical retirement and sought appointment against the reserved quota. A subsequent application dated 31.03.2026 reiterates his request, specifically seeking appointment against Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

the post of PST, while referring to the subsequent judicial developments concerning Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules. According to the petitioner, despite approaching the departmental authorities, his claim has not been decided; hence, he has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking appointment against a post corresponding to his eligibility under the quota applicable to children of medically retired employees.

15.W.P No. 222-M/2025 (Zia Ullah): Petitioner Zia Ullah is the son of Bakht Zada, who was serving as Chowkidar at Government Primary School Gachail, Sub-Division Wari, District Dir Upper. On being declared unfit for service by the Medical Board, Bakht Zada was retired on medical grounds with effect from 22.11.2022 under section 13(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, vide retirement order dated 05.01.2023. The Medical Board had found him suffering from depressive illness with psychotic features and recommended his retirement on medical grounds.

Thereafter, on 10.01.2023, Bakht Zada applied to the District Education Officer (Male), Dir Upper, for appointment of the petitioner against the sons’ quota/Class-IV post; however, the application was returned with the remark “Rejected” on 19.05.2023. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner has instituted the present petition seeking his appointment against a Class-IV post under the reserved quota.

16.W.P No. 1408-M/2025 (Hazrat Bilal): Petitioner Hazrat Bilal is the son of Muhammad Akram, who was serving Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

as Dental Attendant in the Health Department, District Dir Lower, having been appointed on 13.07.1987. After suffering paralysis, Muhammad Akram was declared unfit for further service by the Medical Board and was invalidated from service with effect from 31.01.2002, vide departmental letter dated The petitioner, being a minor at the time of his father's retirement, asserts that after attaining majority he applied in 2015 for appointment under Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules. He again applied on 09.05.2024 for appointment as Pharmacy Technician, whereafter his case was processed by the department and forwarded for concurrence of the Finance Department, but no appointment materialized. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking consideration and appointment against the reserved quota.

It is pertinent to note that this petition had earlier been disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek its revival after decision of the review petition arising out of the judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276. Subsequently, the Federal Constitutional Court, vide order dated 27.02.2026 passed in FCPLA No.508 of 2025, gave prospective effect to the aforesaid judgment, whereafter the petitioner moved an application for restoration of the present petition, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026.

17.W.P No. 455-M/2026 (Zia Ur Rehman): The petitioner, Zia Ur Rehman, is the son of Saeed Ur Rehman, who was serving as Drawing Master (DM) in the Elementary & Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Secondary Education Department, District Bajaur. Saeed Ur Rehman died during service on 10.03.2024, whereafter the Directorate of Elementary & Secondary Education, vide notification dated 20.08.2024, notified his death in service with effect from the said date.

The petitioner thereafter applied on 08.05.2024 for appointment against the deceased employees' sons quota. His grievance is that despite submission of the application and his requisite qualification, he has not been appointed against the reserved quota. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking consideration and appointment against a suitable post under the quota applicable at the relevant time.

18.W.P No. 540-M/2026 (Asif Ali Khan & another): The petitioners, Asif Ali Khan and Zia Ur Rahman, are sons of government servants of the Health Department, District Shangla. The father of petitioner No.1, Hazrat Hayat, Superintendent (BPS-17), was retired on medical grounds with effect from 25.09.2024, vide notification dated 26.02.2025. The father of petitioner No.2, Abdur Rahman, Driver, was examined by the Medical Board on 01.03.2023, which recommended his retirement on medical grounds, and he was accordingly retired with effect from 31.03.2023 vide order dated 23.05.2023.

Petitioner No.1 applied to the District Health Officer, Shangla, on 30.09.2024, whereas petitioner No.2 applied on 24.04.2023, seeking appointments against the quota reserved for children of government servants retired on medical grounds. Their claims having remained unredressed, petitioner Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

No.1 had earlier filed W.P No.142-M/2026, which was dismissed on 04.02.2026. After the subsequent order dated 27.02.2026 of the Federal Constitutional Court, the petitioners again approached the department and have now instituted the present petition seeking their appointments under the reserved quota.

19.W.P No. 340-M/2025 (Ali Muhammad):

Petitioner Ali Muhammad is the son of late Khair Muhammad, who was serving as Clinical Technician Pharmacy (BPS-12) in the Health Department, District Buner, and died during service on 10.11.2020, after having rendered 30 years, 11 months and one day of service. The departmental office order dated 18.11.2020 confirms his death during service and grant of 365 days' leave encashment to his legal heirs.

The petitioner, being qualified as Pharmacy Technician, applied on 29.02.2024 for appointment against the deceased employees' sons quota. His application was processed and forwarded by the District Health Officer, Buner, to the higher authorities; however, no appointment was made. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Clinical Technician Pharmacy (BPS-12) under Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules.

The District Health Officer, Buner, in his para-wise comments, while substantially admitting the factual position regarding the petitioner's claim, opposed the petition primarily on the ground that, pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment and the Establishment Department's notification dated Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

20.11.2024, appointments under the deceased/sons quota had been discontinued; hence, according to the department, the petitioner could not claim appointment under the said quota.

20.W.P No. 1215-M/2025 (Hazrat Ali): Petitioner Hazrat Ali is the son of Amir Baz Khan, who was appointed as a Class-IV employee in Government Middle School Taran, Tehsil Kabal, District Swat, on 21.11.2003. Amir Baz Khan went missing on 16.09.2009 and remained untraced. On a suit instituted by his wife, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Swat, vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2025, declared him presumed dead; in departmental appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Swat, vide judgment dated 29.05.2025, maintained the declaration of presumed death under Article 124 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

The petitioner thereafter applied on 16.04.2025 for appointment as Junior Clerk or PST against the deceased employees’ sons quota. His earlier W.P No.762-M/2025 was disposed of on 02.07.2025 with a direction to the District Education Officer (Male), Swat, to decide his application. Pursuant thereto, the department rejected his claim vide order dated 09.09.2025, mainly on the ground that his father had not completed the requisite ten years’ qualifying service and that appointments under the deceased employees’ quota had meanwhile been discontinued. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present petition.

In his para-wise comments, the District Education Officer (Male), Swat, has opposed the petition, maintaining that Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Amir Baz Khan had remained missing since 2009 and that the petitioner could not claim appointment under the deceased employees’ quota. It is further pleaded that the quota provision had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and subsequently deleted from the APT Rules; therefore, no appointment could now be made thereunder.

21.W.P No. 1387-M/2025 (Ahmad Shayan): The petitioner’s father late Muhammad Yar Khan, who was serving as Field Watcher (BPS-02) in the Soil & Water Conservation Department, District Dir Lower. Muhammad Yar Khan died during service on 13.06.2013, after rendering more than 20 years of service, whereafter his death during service was duly recorded by the department.

The petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death and, after attaining majority, applied for appointment against the deceased employees' quota. The record shows that his application was forwarded by the District Officer, Soil & Water Conservation, Dir Lower, to the Director General, Soil & Water Conservation, vide letter dated 12.10.2022 for further necessary action. The petitioner, possessing Intermediate qualification, asserts that despite lapse of considerable time his claim has not been decided and has, therefore, approached this Court seeking consideration and appointment under Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules.

22.W.P No. 1634-M/2025 (Muhammad Junaid): The petitioner, Muhammad Junaid, is the son of late Nasib Khan, who was serving as Senior Clerk (BPS-14) in the Elementary & Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Secondary Education Department, District Malakand. Nasib Khan was martyred on 17.02.2024 while in service, when he was attacked by unknown terrorists. His death was accordingly notified by the department, and his family's compensation/package was processed.

The petitioner applied for appointment as Junior Clerk (BPS-11) under the Shaheed Package. According to him, he qualified the typing test and interview and his name was included in the list of successful candidates, but the process was subsequently withheld and no appointment order was issued. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Junior Clerk under the Shaheed Package.

Respondents No.3 to 5, in their para-wise comments, acknowledge that the petitioner's father was martyred on 17.02.2024 and that the petitioner was duly recommended for appointment by the Departmental Selection Committee in its meeting held on 09.09.2024 against one of the reserved quota posts. They plead, however, that the process could not be finalized because the case was referred to the Finance Department for approval/concurrence and, meanwhile, the Supreme Court judgment dated 18.10.2024 and the subsequent Establishment Department notification dated 20.11.2024 intervened. According to the respondents, since no appointment order had been issued before the said judgment, the petitioner had no finalized right to appointment and his case could not thereafter be processed under the reserved quota.

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

23.W.P No. 558-M/2025 (Imran Khan): Petitioner Imran Khan is the son of late Rahmat Said, who was serving as Assistant (BPS-16) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Highway Division, C&W Department, Dir Lower. Rahmat Said initially entered service as Chowkidar (BPS-01) on 08.09.1987, was promoted from time to time, and was serving as Assistant when he died during service on 06.03.2024. The departmental obituary dated 04.04.2024 confirms his death while in service.

After his father's death, the petitioner applied for appointment as Junior Clerk under the deceased employees' sons quota. His application was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Dir Lower, to the Superintending Engineer on 30.05.2024, and thereafter by the latter to the Chief Engineer on the same date, but no appointment was made. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Junior Clerk or against any other post commensurate with his qualification under the reserved quota.

Respondents No.2 & 3, in their comments, do not materially dispute the petitioner's underlying service-related facts, but oppose his claim on the ground that the Supreme Court, through its judgment concerning the deceased employees' quota, declared such appointments unconstitutional. They further rely upon the Establishment Department's circular dated 20.11.2024 and notification dated 03.02.2025, whereby the relevant quota provisions, including Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules, were deleted; hence, according to them, no appointment can now be made under the deceased employees' sons quota.

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

24.W.P No. 941-M/2025 (Adnan Hamid Kalami): The petitioner, Adnan Hamid Kalami, is the son of late Mst. Tasleem Bibi, who was serving as PST (BPS-12) at Government Girls Primary School Kalam No.1, Tehsil Bahrain, District Swat. She died during service on 17.03.2024. The departmental order dated 03.10.2024 also records her death in service and sanctions 175 days' leave encashment.

The petitioner, possessing Intermediate qualification, applied on 05.04.2024 for appointment as Junior Clerk against the deceased employees' quota. Alleging that his claim remained unattended despite availability of a vacancy, he has approached this Court seeking appointment as Junior Clerk or against any other suitable post under the reserved quota.

Respondents No.2 & 3, through their para-wise comments, dispute that the petitioner ever submitted an application or his testimonials to the department and maintain that the deceased employees' sons quota had already been abolished pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment and the subsequent amendments to the APT Rules. They accordingly assert that the petitioner has no enforceable right to appointment under the erstwhile quota.

25.W.P No. 1023-M/2026 (Muhammad Asif): The petitioner is the son of late Bahri Karam, who was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Police Department and died during service on 26.08.2006. The death certificate and other supporting documents regarding his father's service/death form part of the record.

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

The petitioner asserts that he applied for appointment in the Police Department under the deceased employees' sons quota, but his request was not entertained. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment against a suitable post in the Police Department under the quota applicable to the children of employees who died during service.

26.W.P No. 526-M/2026 (Mst. Ghufrania Bibi): The petitioner is the widow of late Mian Rahim Khan, who was serving as Junior Clerk in Government High School Jano, Khwaza Khela, District Swat, and died during service on 21.03.2007. The death certificate and departmental communication dated 22.03.2007 confirm his death while in service.

The petitioner seeks appointment of her son, Mian Sayed Hasnain, against the deceased employees' sons quota, asserting that the right accrued on the death of her husband in 2007 when the relevant policy was in force. Her son, who was a minor at the time of his father's death, has since attained majority and acquired Intermediate qualification, besides a diploma in Information Technology. According to the petitioner, applications for his appointment were submitted to the department but were not entertained; hence, she has approached this Court seeking consideration of her son for appointment under the quota applicable at the time of her husband's death.

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

27.W.P No. 587-M/2026 (Muhsin Khan): Petitioner Muhsin Khan is the son of late Sheikh Farid, who was serving as Chowkidar (BPS-04) at Government Girls Primary School Shergarh, District Buner. Sheikh Farid died during service on 08.10.2021, and the department sanctioned retirement/death benefits with effect from the said date vide order dated 05.11.2021. The pension record also reflects his date of death as The petitioner thereafter applied for appointment as Chowkidar in place of his deceased father under the deceased employees' quota. According to him, despite repeated applications, his claim was not decided, though a vacant post of Chowkidar was available in the department. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Chowkidar against the reserved quota.

28.W.P No. 607-M/2026 (Naveed Ullah): The petitioner, Naveed Ullah, is the son of late Saeed Umar, who was serving as Class-IV/Naib Qasid (BPS-04) at Government Higher Secondary School Shalkandai, District Dir Lower. Saeed Umar had been appointed on 21.06.1999 and died during service on 02.02.2022. The departmental order dated 05.05.2022 sanctioned family pension and other death benefits in favour of his widow.

After the death of his father, the petitioner applied for appointment under the deceased employees’ quota. According to him, the matter remained pending owing to the ban on recruitment imposed by the Provincial Government. The Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

record further shows that, on his application, the Election Commission of Pakistan, vide letter dated 10.11.2023, forwarded his request for relaxation of the recruitment ban to the Chief Secretary, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, for appropriate action. The petitioner asserts that despite initiation of the process well before discontinuation of the quota, no appointment was made and has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment against a suitable post under the deceased employees’ quota.

29.W.P No. 651-M/2026 (Abid Ur Rahman): The petitioner’s father late Bulbul Nazar was serving as Road Mate in C&W Division Lower Chitral. Bulbul Nazar had entered service on 24.06.1982 and, after rendering 29 years of service, died during service on 14.05.2011. The departmental death certificate confirms these particulars.

The petitioner thereafter applied for appointment under the deceased employees’ sons quota against the vacancy created due to his father’s death. His grievance is that despite submission of the application and relevant documents, his claim remained unattended. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Road Mate or against any other suitable post under the deceased employees’ quota.

30.W.P No. 682-M/2026 (Suliman Khan): The petitioner, Suliman Khan, is the son of late Mst. Bacha Nasiba, who was serving as SST (BPS-16) at Government Girls Middle School Beha, Matta, District Swat, under the Elementary & Secondary Education Department. She died during service on Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

22.06.2020, whereafter the Directorate of Elementary & Secondary Education, vide notification dated 06.01.2021, sanctioned death leave and family pension/other admissible benefits to her legal heirs.

The petitioner, possessing the requisite academic qualification, applied for appointment under the deceased employees’ quota and claims eligibility for appointment as PST (BPS-12). His grievance is that despite his application, the respondents have not considered his case or issued any order thereon. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as PST or against any other suitable post under the deceased employees’ quota.

31.W.P No. 707-M/2026 (Mst. Mumtaz Bibi & another): Petitioner No.1, Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, is the widow, while petitioner No.2, Khalil Ullah, is the son of late Zahid Hussain, who was serving as a Constable in the Police Department, District Swat. Zahid Hussain died during service on 01.03.2012 due to a cylinder blast. According to the petitioners, his children were minors at the time of his death and, therefore, could not seek appointment under the deceased employees’ quota.

Petitioner No.2, after attaining majority and acquiring the requisite qualification, applied for appointment under the deceased employees’ sons quota. The petitioners assert that despite repeated applications, neither petitioner No.2 has been appointed nor have the pensionary/death compensation benefits claimed by the family been released. They have, Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

therefore, approached this Court seeking inter alia appointment of petitioner No.2 against a suitable post under the deceased employees’ quota, besides release of the pension and other death benefits of late Zahid Hussain.

32.W.P No. 714-M/2026 (Mst. Farkhanda Begum): The petitioner is the widow of late Hidayat-ur-Rahman, who was appointed as Class-IV/Chowkidar in the Education Department on 29.04.2009. He was suspended from service on 09.01.2013 on account of a criminal case and, after his conviction, remained under suspension. Upon completion of his sentence, he was released from jail on 16.06.2017. During pendency of the question regarding his reinstatement/service status, he suffered from cardiac ailment and died on 03.11.2022. The petitioner, being his widow and having four children, claims appointment as Primary School Teacher (PST), BPS-12, under the deceased employees’ quota, asserting that she possesses the requisite educational and professional qualifications. Her earlier W.P No.821-M/2023 for the same relief was withdrawn on 28.10.2024 with liberty to file afresh.

The District Education Officer (Female), Malakand, in her para-wise comments, had contested the earlier writ petition primarily on the ground that late Hidayat-ur-Rahman, after completing his sentence, was not reinstated in service and remained out of service until his death; hence, according to the Department, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment under the deceased employees’ quota. It is further stated that the Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

deceased's brother had already been appointed against the relevant quota/post.

Pertinent to mention that the present petition has been instituted after the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court dated 27.02.2026. At the cost of repetition, the said judgment dealt with the prospective operation of General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) and held inter alia that rights which had already accrued before that judgment were not retrospectively taken away.

33.W.P No. 740-M/2026 (Mst. Afia Bibi): The petitioner, Mst. Afia Bibi, is the daughter of late Jamil Ahmad, who was initially appointed as PTC Teacher (BPS-07) in the Education Department in 1986 and was subsequently promoted to BPS-12 in 2007. He died during service on 27.09.2014. The service record and Death Registration Certificate placed on the file substantiate his service and death particulars.

The petitioner asserts that, being the daughter of an employee who died in harness, she is entitled to appointment under the deceased employees’ son/daughter quota. She approached the District Education Officer, Shangla, on 25.03.2026, 31.03.2026 and 01.04.2026, but according to her, the applications were not received. She thereafter submitted an application to the higher authorities on 02.04.2026. On the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner, Shangla, who vide letter dated 09.04.2026 directed consideration of her case in accordance with law, the matter was forwarded by the District Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Education Officer (Male), Shangla, to the District Education Officer (Female), Shangla, vide letter dated 21.04.2026. The petitioner, who possesses Associate Degree in Arts and Diploma in Information Technology, seeks appointment as PST (BPS-12), CT-IT (BPS-12), or against any other suitable post under the deceased employees’ quota.

34.W.P No. 754-M/2026 (Muhammad Qasim): The petitioner is the son of late Said Shah, who was serving as Chowkidar in Government Primary School Badhal, District Buner. The service record reflects that Said Shah had rendered 06 years, 07 months and 09 days of service and died during service on 22.09.2023. The departmental sanction order dated 16.10.2023 records retirement/death benefits in respect of late Said Shah.

The petitioner, being one of the legal heirs of the deceased employee and possessing Intermediate qualification, applied for appointment as Chowkidar under the deceased employees’ quota. He asserts that despite repeated representations, his claim remained undecided. Relying upon the subsequent judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court dated 27.02.2026, he claims that his case is entitled to consideration under the policy applicable at the relevant time. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Chowkidar against a suitable vacant/reserved post in District Buner under the deceased employees’ quota.

35.W.P No. 787-M/2026 (Asim Khan): The petitioner is the son of late Muhammad Yousaf, who was appointed as Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Crop Reporter (BPS-05) in the Agriculture Department on 17.01.1985 and was subsequently promoted as Statistical Assistant (BPS-16). Muhammad Yousaf died during service on 20.12.2023. Consequently, vide office order dated 24.01.2024, he was treated as having stood retired from government service with effect from 20.12.2023, i.e., the date of his death.

The petitioner, possessing B.S. Economics, applied on 09.01.2024 for appointment as Crop Reporter (BPS-11) under the deceased employees’ quota. His application was forwarded by the Statistical Officer, Crop Reporting Services, District Malakand, to the Director General, Crop Reporting Services, on 12.02.2024, but no appointment was made. The petitioner asserts that his claim had arisen and was pending before the Supreme Court judgment dated 26.09.2024 and, relying upon the subsequent judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court dated 27.02.2026, has approached this Court seeking appointment as Crop Reporter (BPS-11) or against any other suitable post under the reserved quota.

36.W.P No. 788-M/2026 (Shahid Iqbal & another): The two petitioners seek appointments under the deceased employees’ quota on account of the deaths in service of their respective fathers in the Elementary & Secondary Education Department, District Dir Lower. Petitioner No.1, Shahid Iqbal, is the son of late Hanif Ur Rahman, who was appointed as PST on 20.10.1983, was subsequently promoted as SST, and died during service on 25.11.2023. The departmental obituary dated 10.01.2024 confirms his death in service. Petitioner No.2, Ikram Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Ullah, is the son of late Syed Farid Ullah Shah, who was appointed as PST on 20.10.1983, subsequently promoted as SDM (BPS-16), and died during service on 21.02.2023. The Directorate sanctioned death leave in his respect vide order dated 07.07.2023.

The petitioners, possessing B.S. Computer Science and B.A. qualifications, respectively, applied for appointment under the deceased employees’ quota after the deaths of their fathers. Their applications, however, remained pending without appointment. Relying upon the subsequent judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court dated 27.02.2026, they again approached the competent authority but remained unsuccessful. They have, therefore, instituted the present petition seeking appointment of petitioner No.1 as CT-IT (BPS-12) and petitioner No.2 as PST (BPS-12), respectively, or against any other suitable posts under the reserved quota.

37.W.P No. 793-M/2026 (Sohail Akhtar & others): The six petitioners seek appointment under the deceased employees’ quota on account of the deaths in service of their respective fathers in the Elementary & Secondary Education Department, District Dir Lower. Their particulars, as given in the petition, are:

(i)Sohail Akhtar, son of late Said Ali Shah, who was appointed as Arabic Teacher on 05.04.1999, subsequently promoted as SST, and died on

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

(ii)Munir Ahmad, son of late Siraj Muhammad, who was appointed as PTC on 20.10.1997 and died on

(iii)Zohaib Ahmad, son of late Fateh Ahmad, who was appointed as PST on 01.09.1987, subsequently promoted as SPST (BPS-13), and died on

(iv)Waseem Shah, son of late Zubair Shah, who was appointed as PET on 29.04.1990 and died on

(v)Muhammad Tahir, son of late Rahmat Zada, who was appointed as CT on 17.10.1992, subsequently promoted as SCT (BPS-16), and died on 02.02.2022; and

(vi)Muhammad Wahaj Khan, son of late Shehryar Khan, who was appointed as PST on 18.09.1989, subsequently promoted as SST (BPS-15), and died on 13.08.2023.

The petition is supported by the respective departmental service/death documents placed on the record.

The petitioners possess B.A., B.S., B.A., B.S. English, B.A. and F.Sc qualifications, respectively, and assert that after the deaths of their fathers they applied for appointment against suitable posts under the deceased employees’ quota, but their applications remained pending without any appointment orders. After the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court dated 27.02.2026, they again approached the competent authority for consideration of their claims but remained unsuccessful. They have, therefore, Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

instituted the present petition seeking appointments against suitable posts under the reserved quota in accordance with their respective qualifications.

38.W.P No. 794-M/2026 (Akram Ullah): The petitioner is the son of late Sher Hakim, who was appointed as Registrar in the Industries, Commerce & Technical Education Department on 09.02.1986 and, after rendering 36 years, 06 months and 24 days of service, died during service on 01.09.2022. The departmental obituary dated 17.01.2023 records that he was serving as Registrar (BPS-17), Directorate General of Industries & Commerce, at the time of his death.

The petitioner, who possesses M.Sc. Computer Science, applied for appointment as Junior Clerk under the deceased employees’ quota. His application dated 22.11.2023 was addressed to the Director General, Industries & Commerce, but his claim remained pending. Relying upon the subsequent judicial pronouncements concerning the prospective operation of the Supreme Court judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276, he has approached this Court seeking appointment against a suitable post under the reserved quota.

39.W.P No. 819-M/2026 (Nawshad Ali): The petitioner is the son of late Johar Ali, who was serving as Chowkidar in the Elementary & Secondary Education Department, District Dir Upper, and died during service on 07.07.2025. The petitioner asserts that, being the sole eligible son/candidate from the family, he applied for appointment under the deceased employees’ quota, but his application Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

remained pending. The record further shows that a Scrutiny Committee was constituted on 16.03.2026 for scrutiny of candidates who had applied for the post of Chowkidar (BPS- 03), with scrutiny scheduled for 01.04.2026.

The petitioner maintains that, following the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court dated 27.02.2026, he again approached the respondents for consideration of his claim, but no appointment was made. He further asserts that the department subsequently advertised posts falling under the reserved quota, notwithstanding his pending claim. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment against a suitable post under the deceased employees’ quota.

40.W.P No. 912-M/2026 (Shahan Khan): The petitioner’s mother late Mst. Shamim Begum was serving as PTC in the Elementary & Secondary Education Department, District Swat, and died during service on 11.05.2005. The petitioner was born on 06.01.2005 and was thus only about four months old at the time of his mother's death. He asserts that owing to his minority, he could not earlier pursue any claim for appointment under the deceased employees’ quota.

After attaining majority and acquiring the requisite qualification, the petitioner submitted an application dated 12.01.2024 to the District Education Officer (Female), Swat, seeking appointment as Naib Qasid or against any other suitable post under the deceased employees’ quota. According to him, the application, which had been submitted prior to the Supreme Court judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276, has neither Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

been accepted nor rejected through any speaking order. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking consideration and decision of his pending claim in accordance with the law and policy applicable at the relevant time.

41.W.P No. 951-M/2026 (Shahzada Wasatullah Khan): The petitioner, Shahzada Wasatullah Khan, is the son of late Ikramullah, who was serving at GMS Balkanai as a certified teacher (BPS-15), Tehsil Alpuri, District Shangla, and died during service in an accident on 02.07.2010. The death certificate issued by the Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital Alpuri, also confirms the date of death as 02.07.2010. The petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death.

After attaining majority and acquiring the requisite qualification, including F.Sc. and Diploma in Information Technology, the petitioner applied for appointment as Junior Clerk under the deceased employees’ quota. The record includes an enquiry report regarding his claim, wherein the service/death particulars of his father and the petitioner's eligibility were examined and his case was recommended for consideration under the relevant quota. His grievance is that despite the said process, he has not been appointed. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Junior Clerk in the Elementary & Secondary Education Department, District Shangla, under the deceased employees’ quota.

42.W.P No. 1005-M/2026 (Osama Amin): Petitioner, Osama Amin is the son of Mst. Zuhra, who was serving as SPST (BPS-14) in the Elementary & Secondary Education Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Department, District Dir Upper. She was retired from service on medical grounds with effect from 22.04.2024, pursuant to the opinion of the Medical Board declaring her permanently incapacitated for further service. The retirement order was issued by the District Education Officer (Female), Dir Upper, on 23.04.2024.

The petitioner, being the son/candidate from the family and possessing HSSC/F.Sc. qualification, applied for appointment under the retired employees’ quota against a suitable post. According to the petitioner, despite submission and processing of his application, no appointment was made. After the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court dated 27.02.2026, he again approached the respondents but remained unsuccessful. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Junior Clerk or against any other suitable post according to his qualification under the retired employees’ quota.

43.W.P No. 1016-M/2026 (Hilal Umar): The petitioner is the son of Umar Zada, who was serving as Senior Clerk in the Police Department, District Dir Lower. During service, Umar Zada suffered serious health complications and, upon being declared permanently incapacitated by the Standing Medical Board, Police Services Hospital, Peshawar, was retired/invalidated from service on medical grounds with effect from 02.02.2022. The retirement/invalidating notification was issued on 20.04.2022.

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

The petitioner, possessing F.Sc. qualification, applied for appointment as Junior Clerk under the retired/ invalidated employees’ quota. The record shows that his father also submitted an application on his behalf and that the petitioner’s case was processed by the District Police Officer, Dir Lower. In fact, vide memorandum dated 12.05.2026, the DPO forwarded his case to the Regional Police Officer, Malakand, recording that the petitioner was qualified as Junior Clerk under Standing Order No.02/2020 and further certifying that he had been enlisted/appointed under the said Standing Order, subject to availability/requirement. However, the Regional Police Officer, Malakand, vide memorandum dated 19.05.2026, returned the case with reference to the Government instructions issued in consequence of the Supreme Court judgment in C.P. No.3390/2021. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking appointment as Junior Clerk against the retired/invalidated employees’ quota.

44.We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General representing the official respondents and perused the record of each case with their able assistance.

45.The controversy in this batch of petitions mainly turns upon the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) in relation to claims which had their genesis before the said judgment was rendered. Before addressing that question, it would be appropriate to reproduce Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

the statutory provision under which the petitioners, except where noticed separately, claim consideration for appointment. Their claims are founded upon the erstwhile Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules, which, for facility of reference, is reproduced below:

“10. Appointment by Initial Recruitment:- (1) -----

(4)Where a civil servant dies or is rendered incapacitated/invalidated permanently during service then notwithstanding the procedure provided for in sub-rule (2), the appointing authority may appoint one of the children of such civil servant, or if the child has not attained the age prescribed for appointment in Government Service, the widow/wife of such civil servant, to a post in any of the Basic Pay Scales 1-10:

Provided that the child or the widow/wife as the case may be, possesses the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment to the post:

Provided further that if there are two widows/wives of the deceased civil servant, preference shall be given to the elder widow/wife. Provided also that the appointment under this sub rule is subject to availability of a vacancy and if more than one vacancies in different pay scales are available at a time, and the child or the widow/wife, as the case may be, possesses the qualifications making him or her eligible for appointment in more than one post, he/she shall ordinarily be appointed to the post carrying higher pay scale.

Provided further that this shall not apply to any post in BPS-1-10 falling in the purview of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission.”

Thus, the rule contemplated the death or permanent incapacity/invalidating retirement of the civil servant as the foundational event, while actual appointment remained subject, inter alia, to the prescribed minimum qualification and availability of a vacancy.

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

46.The constitutional validity of appointments of this nature subsequently came under consideration before the Supreme Court in General Post Office (PLD 2024 SC 1276). The Supreme Court held that appointments to public service without open advertisement, competition and merit, merely on the basis of relationship with a deceased or incapacitated civil servant, were discriminatory and violative of Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1) and 27 of the Constitution. Consequently, Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules, along with corresponding provisions operating in the other Provinces and the Federal Government, was declared unconstitutional. Significantly, however, the Supreme Court protected appointments already made and also expressly excluded from the sweep of the judgment the policies, rules and compensation packages meant for the legal heirs of martyred personnel of law-enforcement agencies and civil servants dying on account of terrorist activities. In consequence thereof, the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa issued Notification No. SO(Policy)/E&AD/1- 3/2025 dated 03.02.2025, deleting inter alia sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the APT Rules. The Notification reads as under:

“No. SO(Policy)/E&AD/1-3/2025. ---In compliance of Judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Civil Petition No. 3390 of 2021, dated: 18.10.2024, the Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 26 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Act No. XVIII of 1973), is pleased to direct that in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, the following further amendments shall be made namely:

AMENDMENTS

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

In rule 10,-

(a)in sub-rule (2), the provisos shall be deleted; and

(b)sub-rule (4) shall be deleted.”

47.The matter, however, did not rest there. In Zahida Parveen v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education and others (PLD 2025 SC 529), while dealing with an appointment already made under Rule 10(4), the Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle concerning prospective operation of its judgments and observed:

“11. For completeness of record, it is clarified that the judgment of this Court reported as General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) has struck down Rule 10(4) of the Rules as being ultra vires the Constitution but has no application on appointments that have been already made. It is well settled that the judgments of this Court operate prospectively, unless declared otherwise. Therefore, the present case remains unaffected by the said judgment.” [underlining added]

48.The above pronouncement assumes significance because it recognizes that the declaration in General Post Office was not to operate retrospectively so as to unsettle legal consequences which had already attained protection under the pre-existing regime.

49.The question as to when the right accrues, as distinguished from when the administrative process culminates in an appointment order, thereafter directly arose before the Federal Constitutional Court in The Province of Sindh v. Muhammad Rizwan Khan & others, F.C.P.L.A. No.508 of 2025 and connected matters, decided on Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

27.02.2026. The Court answered the question by treating the qualifying event itself as the point of accrual and observed:

“4. As noted above, petitioner is aggrieved of acceptance of writ petitions of the respondents by learned Sindh High Court. The controversy pertains to the fact that respondents are spouse/children of the deceased Sindh civil servants and sought appointments on the basis of Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 (the Rules). The Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment passed in case reported as General Post Office, Islamabad and others Vs. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) struck down Rule 11-A ibid and petitioner now seeks benefit thereof on the basis that since the Rule is no longer in the field, no appointment can be made. The nub of the controversy is that at the time when the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan supra was handed down, had the right accrued in favour of the respondents? In this regard, the relevant event, which resulted in the accrual of the right, was the death of the civil servant. As and when the death of a civil servant takes place, one of the children and/or spouse acquires the right to be appointed in the civil service. The process of application and/or a formal appointment letter are administrative acts. Since right had accrued in favour of private respondents, hence judgment of the Supreme Court does not come in their way for appointment on deceased employee children/spouse quota. It is trite law that judgments of the Supreme Court operate prospectively and not retrospectively. Even-otherwise, the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision2, clarified that the judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276 supra does not take away the accrued rights and/or set aside the past and closed transactions. - [emphasis supplied]

The ratio, therefore, leaves little room for controversy that non-issuance of an appointment letter before 26.09.2024 is not, by itself, destructive of a claim where the Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

qualifying event and the consequential accrual of right had already taken place under the law then occupying the field.

50.The Provincial Government itself has brought its administrative practice in conformity with the above pronouncement. Consequent upon the judgment dated 27.02.2026 of the Federal Constitutional Court, Notification No. SO(P)/E&AD/1-3/APT rules/Deceased son Quota dated 20.06.2026 was issued, which reads:

“Subject: COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

OF PAKISTANDATED 27-02-2026

PASSED IN FCPLAS 508 & 591/2025

UNDER THE TITLE "THE PROVINCE

OF SINDH VERSUS MUHAMMAD

RIZWAN KHAN & OTHERS".

Dear Sir/Madam, I am directed to state that, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as General Post Office, Islamabad and others Vs. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) dated 26-09- 2024, provisions relating to quota-based appointments, including appointments against quota reserved for children/spouses of deceased/incapacitated/invalidated or medically retired civil servants, were declared unconstitutional for being inconsistent with Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25 and 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that public employment must be filled through open advertisement, competition and merit. Consequent upon the said judgment, provisos to Sub- Rule 2 and Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 10 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989 were deleted.

2.Subsequently, the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, vide judgment dated 27-02-2026 passed in F.C.P.L.A. Nos. 508, 391, 346, 347, 348, 589, 267, 593, 130 and 353 of 2025, clarified the scope and effect of the aforesaid Judgment. The Federal Constitutional Court held that the judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276 shall operate prospectively and shall not affect accrued or vested rights that had existed prior to the declaration of law.

3.The matter has been examined by the Law Department in consultation with the learned Advocate Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It has been concluded that cases involving claims arising prior to the judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276 are required to be examined on their own facts to determine whether any accrued or vested right had come into existence before the declaration of law as null and void by Supreme Court of Pakistan.

4.Accordingly, all Administrative Departments are advised that no fresh appointment under the children/spouse quota of deceased, incapacitated, invalidated, or medically retired civil servants shall be made after 26-09-2024.

Any claim based on a qualifying event occurring on or after 26-09-2024 shall not be entertained. However, where the qualifying event occurred before 26-09-2024, the right arising under the then existing legal framework shall be deemed to have accrued prior to the judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276.

5.The Administrative Departments shall ensure that each case is examined strictly on its own merits, in accordance with applicable law, relevant judicial pronouncements and facts available on record. Where any doubt persists regarding the existence or extent of accrued rights, the matter may be referred to the Law Department along with complete facts and relevant record for further legal examination.

6.These instructions may be brought to the notice of all Attached Departments and Subordinate Offices under the administrative control of the respective Departments for strict compliance, please.”

[underlining added]

The notification thus draws the same dividing line: 26.09.2024. A qualifying event occurring before that date is to be examined under the legal framework then existing; one occurring on or after that date cannot generate a fresh claim under the erstwhile quota.

51.The controversy has, more recently, been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 12.05.2026 rendered in W.P No.1421-P/2026, Zeeshan Ali v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

and others. After considering General Post Office, Zahida Parveen and the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court in Muhammad Rizwan Khan, it was held:

“12. We therefore, find that law laid down by the Supreme Court in General Post Office is to be applied prospectively, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Zahid Parveen and by the FCC in Muhammad Rizwan Khan. It is clarified that the right contemplated by Rule 10(4) of KP APT Rules would have accrued in favour of such individuals who satisfied the minimum qualification for the appointment in question in terms of the first proviso of Rule 10(4) of KP APT Rules at the time of the civil servant's death/incapacity, where such death/incapacity resulted in the accrual of such right prior to 26.09.2024 when the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Post Office was rendered and Rule 10(4) of the KP APT Rules were declared to be illegal.

13.With this clarification the petitions are disposed of. The applications of the petitioners that form the subject master of these petitions shall be deemed pending before the competent authorities with the employing departments and shall be decided within a period of one month, in accordance with law as clarified herein above”.

The above exposition supplies the immediate precedent for disposal of the present batch. It also makes it clear that the Court is not to issue a mechanical direction for appointment merely because the death or incapacity preceded the cut-off date. The departmental authority has still to examine the claimant's eligibility under the erstwhile Rule 10(4), including the requirement of minimum qualification and availability of a vacancy, in the light of the law explained above.

52.Applying these principles to the individual petitions, almost all the qualifying events reflected in the present record occurred before 26.09.2024. For a clearer Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

appreciation of the individual claims and to avoid an unnecessary repetition of the material dates in narrative form, the particulars of the qualifying event in each petition, i.e., the date of permanent incapacity/ invalidating retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be, are conveniently tabulated below. The table also indicates whether the qualifying event occurred before or after the cut-off date of 26.09.2024, which, in view of the legal position discussed above, is determinative of the accrual of a right under the erstwhile Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules.

No. of writ petition Name of employee Date of incapacitation/ invalidation W.P No.1247-M/2023 Fazal Karim 31.08.2005 W.P No.1234-M/2025 Misbah Ullah 05.06.2023 W.P No.638-M/2025 Sher Bahadar 01.09.2023 W.P No.35-M/2026 Mst. Bakht Sewa 26.02.2024 W.P No.453-M/2026 Bakht Rahman 28.06.2024 W.P No.551-M/2026 Yaqoob Shah 06.12.2021 W.P No.647-M/ 2026 Muhammad Arif 18.07.2022 W.P No.711-M/2026 Naeem Ul Haq 31.01.2024 W.P No.753-M/2026 Jowhar Ali 23.08.2023 W.P No.789-M/2026 Muhammad Qasim 31.07.2007 W.P No.913-M/2026 Rahim Khan 31.08.2022 W.P No.965-M/2026 Bashir Ahmad 21.09.2022 W.P No.222-M/2025 Bakht Zada 22.11.2022 W.P No.1408-M/2025 Muhammad Akram 31.01.2002 W.P No.540-M/2026 Abdur Rahman 31.03.2023 W.P No.540-M/2026 Hazrat Hayat 25.09.2024

53.The same position obtains in the deceased- employee cases where the deaths occurred before the cut-off date, the detail whereof is given in the following table:

No. of writ petition Name of employee Date of death W.P No.455-M/2026 Saeed Ur Rehman 10.03.2024 W.P No.340-M/2025 Khair Muhammad 10.11.2020 W.P No.1387-M/2025 Muhammad Yar Khan 13.06.2013 W.P No.558-M/2025 Rahmat Said 06.03.2024 Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

W.P No.941-M/2025 Mst. Tasleem Bibi 17.03.2024 W.P No.1023-M/2026 Bahri Karam 26.08.2006 W.P No.526-M/2026 Mian Rahim Khan 21.03.2007 W.P No.587-M/2026 Sheikh Farid 08.10.2021 W.P No.607-M/2026 Saeed Umar 02.02.2022 W.P No.651-M/2026 Bulbul Nazar 14.05.2011 W.P No.682-M/2026 Mst. Bacha Nasiba 22.06.2020 W.P No.707-M/2026 Zahid Hussain 01.03.2012 W.P No.714-M/2026 Hidayat-ur-Rahman 03.11.2022 W.P No.740-M/2026 Jamil Ahmad 27.09.2014 W.P No.754-M/2026 Said Shah 22.09.2023 W.P No.787-M/2026 Muhammad Yousaf 20.12.2023 W.P No.788-M/2026 Hanif Ur Rahman 25.11.2023 Syed Farid Ullah 21.02.2023 Said Ali Shah 26.11.2022 W.P No. 793-M/2026 Siraj Muhammad 07.11.2019 Fateh Ahmad 03.08.2023 Zubair Shah 07.06.2024 Rahmat Zada 02.02.2022 Shehryar Khan 13.08.2022 W.P No.794-M/2026 Sher Hakim 01.09.2022 W.P No.912-M/2026 Mst. Shamim Begum 11.05.2005 W.P No.951-M/2026 Ikramullah 02.07.2010

Likewise, Mst. Zuhra was medically retired with effect from 22.04.2024 in W.P No.1005-M/2026 and Umar Zada was invalidated with effect from 02.02.2022 in W.P No.1016-M/2026. Their cases, therefore, cannot be rejected merely because the administrative process had not culminated before 26.09.2024. The competent authorities are required to determine their individual eligibility under the erstwhile legal framework and the principles laid down in Zeeshan Ali.

54.A different position, however, obtains in W.P No.819-M/2026 (Nawshad Ali). His father, Johar Ali, admittedly died during service on 07.07.2025, considerably after the cut-off date of 26.09.2024. By that time the declaration in General Post Office had already intervened and no right under the erstwhile Rule 10(4) could accrue on the Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

subsequent death. The constitution of a Scrutiny Committee on 16.03.2026 or the petitioner's subsequent pursuit of his claim cannot revive a statutory entitlement which did not exist on the date of the qualifying event. His case squarely falls within paragraph 4 of the Provincial Government's notification dated 20.06.2026, which stipulates that a claim based upon a qualifying event occurring on or after 26.09.2024 shall not be entertained. W.P No.819-M/2026 is, therefore, dismissed.

55.There are, however, one petition which requires separate treatment on an altogether different footing. In W.P No.1634-M/2025 (Muhammad Junaid), the petitioner's father, Nasib Khan, was martyred on 17.02.2024 in a terrorist attack while in service. The petitioner claims appointment under the Shaheed Package, and the respondents themselves acknowledge that he qualified the relevant process and was recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee on 09.09.2024. The judgment in General Post Office expressly clarifies that it shall not affect “the policies, rules or compensation packages of the Federal and Provincial Governments for the benefit of the legal heirs of martyred personnel of the law enforcement agencies and of civil servants who die on account of terrorist activities.” The case of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, does not fall within the class of ordinary quota claims invalidated by that judgment. The respondents, consequently, cannot decline consideration of his claim merely by invoking General Post Office and the consequential discontinuation of Rule Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

10(4). W.P No.1634-M/2025 is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respective competent authorities to process and decide the petitioner’s case under the applicable Shaheed/Shuhada Package, independently of the prohibition declared in PLD 2024 SC 1276, subject, of course, to fulfillment of the requirements of the applicable package/rules.

56.At this stage, the objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General regarding those cases in which the qualifying event predates the later amendments to Rule 10(4) may also be dealt with. It has been argued that Rule 10(4) was incorporated/amended on 05.09.2006 and was subsequently substituted through Notification No. SO(R-VI) E&AD/1-3/2015 dated 19.04.2016; therefore, cases where the employee had already been medically retired before the amendment could not derive benefit therefrom. The objection cannot prevail. The Provincial Government itself has removed the ambiguity through Notification No. SOR-(E&AD)3-8596 dated 12.10.2017, which reads as follows:

“Subject:- GUIDANCE/CLARIFICATION

REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF

SON/DAUGHTER/WIFE OF A

CIVIL SERVANT RETIRED

INCAPACITATED OR

INVALIDATED PERMANENTLY ON

MEDICAL BOARD.

Dear Sir, I am directed to refer to elementary & secondary education department letter No. SOE&SED/1-45/2017, dated 02/10/2017 on the subject noted above and to advise E&SE department that son/daughter/wife etc. of those employment are also eligible for appointment who have been retired on medical grounds before amendment in rule-10 (4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

civil servant (appointment, promotion and transfer) rules, 1989.”

[underlining added] The Government, having itself extended the benefit to persons medically retired before the amendment, cannot apply a contrary standard selectively to similarly situated claimants.

57.This particular issue had earlier been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P No.259-M/2019, Mian Tazan Khan v. DFO Forest Division Alpuri & others, decided on 22.10.2019. The father of the petitioner therein had been declared incapacitated as far back as 19.05.1996, yet the objection of retrospectivity was repelled in view of the Government's own clarification dated 12.10.2017. The Court observed:

“6. Sub Rule 4 of Rule 10 of the APT Rules provided a right of appointment in BPS-1 to 15 to the son and daughter of those employees who dies during their active service. Vide Notification No. SO(R-VI) E&AD/1-3/2015 dated 19.04.2016 the said Sub Rule was substituted with the following;

4.Where a civil servant dies or is rendered incapacitated or invalidated permanently during service or retired on medical board, notwithstanding the procedure provided for in sub-rule (2), the appointing authority may appoint one of the children of such civil servant or if the child has not attained the age prescribed for appointment in Government service, the widow or wife as the case may be, of such civil servant, to a posts in any of the basic pay scales 3 to 11 in Provincial cadre post and basic pay scales 3 to 12 in District cadre posts: The father of the petitioner had been declared incapacitated for further service by the Standing Medical Board on 19.05.1996. The question of giving retrospective operation to the amended rules is not apt to be discussed or settled in the instant proceedings for the reason that the Government has already extended Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

the benefit of the amended rules to the persons who had retired on medical ground prior to the amendment in Rule 10 (4) of the ibid rules. 'The said benefit was extended vide, letter dated 12.10.2017 which was annexed with the Writ Petition at page 26.” [underlining added]

Accordingly, the claims in W.P No.1247-M/2023 (Noman Karim), whose father was medically retired on 31.08.2005, and W.P No.1408-M/2025 (Hazrat Bilal), whose father was invalidated with effect from 31.01.2002, cannot be rejected merely because the medical retirement/invalidation preceded the subsequent amendment of Rule 10(4). Their eligibility shall be examined on its own merits under the rule read with the Government clarification dated 12.10.2017 and the law noticed above.

58.As regards the cases where the government servant died in service before the later amendment, including W.P No.912-M/2026 concerning the death of Mst. Shamim Begum on 11.05.2005 and W.P No.1023-M/2026 concerning the death of Bahri Karam on 26.08.2006, their cases stand on a somewhat different footing from pre-amendment medical retirement because the earlier incarnation of Rule 10(4) itself provided for appointment of a son/daughter of an employee dying during active service, as noticed by the Division Bench in Mian Tazan Khan. Their claims, therefore, cannot be defeated merely by reference to the subsequent substitution/ amendment of Rule 10(4); nevertheless, their eligibility, including the effect of age and qualification at the legally Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

relevant time, shall be examined by the competent authorities in accordance with the law laid down in Zeeshan Ali.

59.Consequently, except W.P No.819-M/2026, which has been dismissed above, W.P No.1634-M/2025, which has separately been dealt with under the Shuhada Package, the remaining writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respective competent authorities to treat the petitioners' applications/cases as pending and examine them individually under the erstwhile Rule 10(4) of the APT Rules and the legal regime applicable on the date of the respective qualifying event, particularly keeping in view Zahida Parveen v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (PLD 2025 SC 529), the order dated 27.02.2026 of the Federal Constitutional Court in F.C.P.L.A. No.508 of 2025 and connected matters, the judgment dated 12.05.2026 of this Court in W.P No.1421- P/2026, and the Provincial Government's notification dated 20.06.2026. The exercise shall be completed within one month from receipt of certified copies of this judgment. It is clarified that this direction is for consideration in accordance with the applicable law and shall not be construed as dispensing with any condition of eligibility, qualification or availability of a suitable vacancy prescribed by the erstwhile rule. The office shall send certified copies of this judgment to the concerned departments forthwith.

60.Before parting, W.P No.707-M/2026 (Mst. Mumtaz Bibi & another) requires an additional direction. Besides seeking consideration of petitioner No.2, Khalil Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Ullah, for appointment against the deceased employees' quota on account of the death in service of Zahid Hussain on 01.03.2012, the petitioners have also sought release of the pension and other death benefits of the deceased. The latter claim is distinct from the quota controversy adjudicated through this common judgment and cannot be declined merely on account of the subsequent deletion of Rule 10(4). Accordingly, in addition to consideration of the case of petitioner No.2 in terms already directed, the competent respondents shall independently examine the petitioners' claim for pensionary and other admissible death benefits of late Zahid Hussain and decide the same, in accordance with law, through a speaking order within two months from receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case of any surviving grievance, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail the remedy provided by law before the appropriate forum.

Announced Dt:01.07.2026

-Sd-

JUDGE

-Sd-

JUDGE

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Annexure to the judgment Detail of the connected writ petitions S. Number of Nature of Deceased son No. writ petition Quota 1 W.P 1247- Retired Noman Karim Vs Govt of KPK M/2023 Son through Chief Secretary & Others 2 W.P 1234- Retired Suliman Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2025 Son Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 3 W.P 638- Retired Irshadullah Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2025 Son Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 4 W.P 35- Retired Mst. Bakht Sewa Vs Principal Govt. M/2026 Son P.G Girls College & 1 other 5 W.P 453- Deceased Hamid Ali Vs Govt of Khyber M/2026 son Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Irrigation etc.

6 W.P 551- Retired Sadiq Khan Vs Deputy M/2026 Son Commissioner Swat & others 7 W.P 647- Retired Huraira Alam Vs Deputy M/2026 Son Commissioner Swat & others 8 W.P 711- Retired Muhib Ullah Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2026 Son Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health & others 9 W.P 753- Retired Nizar Ali Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2026 Son Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&SE & others 10 W.P 789- Retired Muhammad Asif Vs Govt. of M/2026 Son Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary E&SE & others 11 W.P 913- Retired Muhammad Asad Rahim Vs Govt. M/2026 Son of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Law, Parliamentary Affairs & Human Rights & others 12 W.P 965- Retired Maaz Ahmad Khan Vs District M/2026 Son Education officer (Male) Swat & others 13 W.P 222- Retired Ziaullah Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2025 Son Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary etc 14 W.P 1408- Retired Hazrat Bilal Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2025 Son Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health & others 15 W.P 455- Retired Zia ur Rehman Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2026 Son Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others

16 W.P 540- Retired Asif Ali Khan & 1 other Vs Govt. of M/2026 Son Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 17 W.P 340- Deceased Ali Muhammad Vs Govt. of Khyber Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

M/2025 son Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health & others 18 W.P 1215- Deceased Hazrat Ali Vs District Education M/2025 son officer (Male) Swat

19 W.P 1387- Deceased Ahmad Shayan Vs Government of M/2025 son KP & others

20 W.P 1634- Deceased Muhammad Junaid Vs Govt. of M/2025 son Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 21 W.P 558- Deceased Imran Khan Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2025 son Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 22 W.P 941- Deceased Adnan Hamid Kalami Vs Govt of M/2025 son Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education & others 23 W.P 1023- Deceased Muhammad Asif Vs Govt. of M/2026 son Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 24 W.P 526- Deceased Mst. Ghufrania Bibi Vs District M/2026 son Education officer (Male) Swat 25 W.P 587- Deceased Muhsin Khan Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2026 son Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&SE & others 26 W.P 607- Deceased Naveedullah Vs Govt of KP through M/2026 son Chief Secretary etc

27 W.P 651- Deceased Abid ur Rehman Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2026 son Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 28 W.P 682- Deceased Suliman Khan Vs District Education M/2026 son officer (Male) Swat & 1 other 29 W.P 707- Deceased Mst. Mumtaz Bibi & 1 other Vs M/2026 son Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Provincial Secretary Home & others 30 W.P 714- Deceased Mst. Farkhanda Begum Vs Govt. of M/2026 son Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 31 W.P 740- Deceased Mst. Afia Bibi Vs Secretary M/2026 son Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others 32 W.P 754- Deceased Muhammad Qasim Vs Govt. of M/2026 son Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&SE & others 33 W.P 787- Deceased Asim Khan Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2026 son Pakhtunkhwa, through Agriculture Department & others 34 W.P 788- Deceased Shahid Iqbal & 1 other Vs Govt. of M/2026 son Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah

Secretary E&SE & others 35 W.P 793- Deceased Sohail Akhtar etc Vs Govt of KP M/2026 son through Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education etc 36 W.P 794- Deceased Akramullah Vs Govt of KP thorough M/2026 son Industries Commerce & Technical Education etc 37 W.P 819- Deceased Nawshad Ali Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2026 son Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary E&SE & others 38 W.P 912- Deceased Shahan Khan Vs Secretary, M/2026 son Elementary & Secondary Education, Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others 39 W.P 951- Deceased Shahzada Wasatullah Khan Vs Govt. M/2026 son of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others 40 W.P 1005- Retired Osama Amin Vs Govt. of Khyber M/2026 son Pakthunkhwa through Secretary E&SE and others 41 W.P 1016- Retired son Hilal Umar Vs Inspector General of M/2026 Police and others

Tajamul/CS* (D.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah