For public servants, the right to live with their families is not a privilege but a constitutional guarantee. Yet in Pakistan’s largest province, this guarantee is being eroded. Teachers deputed from Punjab’s School Education Department (SED) to the Federal Directorate of Education (FDE) in Islamabad under the long-standing Wedlock Policy find themselves cornered by rules that threaten their jobs, their dignity, and their family life.
Article 35 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, states that the State shall protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child. This is not an aspirational statement rather it is a binding constitutional obligation. The Wedlock Policy, introduced in 1998 by then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, translated this principle into practice by ensuring that spouses could serve at the same station. Hundreds of teachers moved to Islamabad under this framework, safeguarding family life without abandoning professional service.
Over the years, the principle was reinforced, not diluted. The Establishment Division codified the policy, amendments were made to civil service rules, and in 2023 Parliament passed the Protection of Family Life and Wedlock Bill. The Bill affirms the right of deputed teachers to be absorbed in the FDE where their spouse resides, explicitly citing Articles 25, 34 and 35 as constitutional foundations. Even the FDE’s own regulations permit deputations of up to nine years which recognize that extended postings on wedlock grounds are both legitimate and necessary.
Punjab’s School Education Department, however, has taken a rigid view. It enforces a five-year cap on deputations and has resorted to threats under PEEDA against teachers who decline to return. Most of those affected are women. Instead of facilitating family life, the Department has turned itself into an enforcer of separation. On one hand, the Constitution obligates the State to protect the family unit under Article 35, and to take measures ensuring women’s participation in public life under Articles 25(3) and 34. On the other hand, a provincial department is pursuing a policy that actively disrupts households and penalizes women for choosing both career and family. This is not merely an administrative misstep but a constitutional violation.
Teachers who relocated to Islamabad years ago under the Wedlock Policy are now being told to return or risk losing their positions.
Teachers should not be forced to choose between their profession and their families, nor live under the shadow of punitive threats for demanding what is already their right.
Families face impossible choices. Should the wife uproot her career, or should the husband abandon his federal posting? Should children’s education be disrupted, or should parents endure long-term separation? These are not minor inconveniences but profound social costs that directly contradict the State’s duty to protect the family unit.
Beyond the human toll lies a broader governance issue. If constitutional guarantees can be overridden by departmental rules, the principle of rule of law itself is undermined. Administrative regulations are designed to serve constitutional objectives, not to contradict them. A government that insists on rigid compliance with its own circulars while ignoring constitutional mandates exposes a troubling inversion of priorities.
This problem is not insurmountable. The number of deputed teachers is limited therefore the impact on Punjab’s education system is negligible. Yet the SED has chosen confrontation over compassion, and coercion over compliance with constitutional norms. Such an approach does not merely inconvenience teachers but it erodes public faith in the responsiveness of institutions.
When those who dedicate their lives to public service are harassed for asserting their constitutional rights, it sends a chilling message to all citizens about the State’s disregard for its own obligations.
What purpose does such inflexibility serve? Does compelling teachers to return after five years enhance the quality of education in Punjab? Does it strengthen governance? Or does it simply fracture families and deepen resentment? The answer is obvious.
At stake is more than the fate of a few hundred teachers. It is about whether governance is understood as the protection of rights and dignity or the enforcement of narrow regulations at the expense of justice. The Constitution’s guarantees are not optional, and the Wedlock Policy is not a favour granted by the State but is an obligation flowing from the law of the land.
The issue demands political leadership, not bureaucratic obstinacy. Chief Minister Punjab, Maryam Nawaz and Punjab Education Minister Rana Sikandar Hayat must intervene to halt this unnecessary and avoidable suffering. They possess not only the authority but also the constitutional and moral responsibility to rectify a policy that disregards fundamental rights, undermines family life, and corrodes public trust in governance. True governance is measured not by blind adherence to rules, but by fidelity to justice, equity, and the Constitution.
Teachers should not be forced to choose between their profession and their families, nor live under the shadow of punitive threats for demanding what is already their right.
