MEER SHAHNAWAZ KHOSO vs PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss — 2025 PLC(CS) 1374 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MEER SHAHNAWAZ KHOSO VS PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss. 3, 11 & 25---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 5---Disabled/differently-abled persons---Appointments---Reserved quota---Petitioner was appointed on the disabled quota vide Notification dated 26.06.2023---However, the same was withdrawn vide directives dated 22.01.2025 on the basis of an order dated 12.01.2023, passed by the Court in a Civil Petition, on the ground that he did not submit old CNIC to establish that the same had the logo of "Disability" to establish that the petitioner had applied on the disabled quota---Validity---Petitioner was appointed as Junior Elementary School Teacher vide letter dated 07.07.2023 subject to certain terms and conditions---In said letter, it was mentioned that petitioner was appointed on a disabled quota having secured 34 marks in the relevant examination---Fact that the petitioner was disabled was clear from Social Welfare Department's Disability Certificate which was dated many years before his job application---As such the objection to his disability because it was not marked on his CNIC was found frivolous especially as he was appointed on a disabled quota and his disability certificate would have been seen by them---Blanket termination letter/impugned order led to the termination of the petitioner and many others because they did not obtain 40 marks in their examinations---However, it was found that the concerned department by terminating the petitioner through the blanket letter/impugned order misinterpreted that the Court order did not apply to those persons who had been appointed on a disabled quota, who only needed to score 33 marks in the examination and the petitioner scored 34 marks which qualified him through the disabled quota and as such he was wrongly terminated---Case of petitioner did not fall within one of a hard area---40 marks requirement had no relevance to the petitioner who had been appointed on the disabled quota under S. 11(12) of the Sindh Empowerment of "Persons with Disabilities" Act, 2018---Even otherwise, if the concerned department which terminated the petitioner was of the view that he was not a part of the disabled quota despite already having appointed him on the disabled quota they should have served him a notice to that effect before terminating his services, which they did not do---In fact disability certificate of petitioner which pre-dated his appointment was never challenged even in those proceedings and as such by implication it had been accepted by the respondents---Not only impugned orders were found to be without lawful authority and set aside but the concerned department adopted a mean spirited approach to the petitioner which lacked any kind of compassion for a differently-abled person when his case was crying out for compassion especially as he was the only disabled person who qualified for the job which had the effect of leaving the disabled quota unused and undermining its very purpose, i.e. assisting differently-abled persons who face more challenges in life than fully abled persons especially in the work place---Petition was allowed, accordingly.

MEER SHAHNAWAZ KHOSO vs PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss — 2025 PLC(CS) 1374 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC