The Supreme Court of Pakistan has made an important ruling in favor of married women working in government jobs. The court declared that married female employees can change their domicile to match their husband’s without losing their right to job promotions or transfers under provincial quotas.
This decision was issued by a two-member bench, consisting of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi. The judgment addresses a long-standing issue that affected many female civil servants across the country. These women often faced difficulties in balancing their professional careers with family life due to restrictions related to their provincial domicile.
The case was brought forward by Dr. Shumaila Naeem, a medical officer who had entered government service using a Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) domicile. After marrying a civil servant from Balochistan, she legally changed her domicile to match her husband’s and applied for a senior position at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS).
Dr. Naeem achieved the highest score in the written exam conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). However, she was disqualified from the interview process because of her original KP domicile. She challenged this decision in the Islamabad High Court and won. The FPSC later appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the FPSC’s objections and upheld the woman’s right to adopt her husband’s domicile. The court also ordered the FPSC to review Dr. Naeem’s application within two weeks.
Legal experts believe this ruling will benefit many married women working in the public sector. It gives them the option to choose their domicile freely, helping them stay closer to their families while pursuing career growth.
This decision promotes gender equality and ensures that professional opportunities remain fair and accessible for women, especially those balancing work and personal life.This decision follows another recent ruling where the Supreme Court reduced the LLB program to four years, showing the court’s active role in addressing policy reforms. Both judgments reflect the court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and accessibility in professional and academic sectors.
