The following exposition seeks to draw urgent national attention to the growing sense of deprivation, exclusion, and institutional inequity increasingly experienced by the educated youth of Gilgit-Baltistan as a consequence of the flawed restructuring of the federal quota regime introduced in 2020 — a policy alteration whose discriminatory repercussions are now manifesting with alarming clarity in the allocation pattern of Pakistan’s Civil Services.
The quota system in Pakistan’s Civil Services has never been a mere bureaucratic mechanism for numerical distribution of vacancies; rather, it constitutes an essential constitutional instrument designed to preserve the principles of inclusive federation, balanced representation, and participatory governance among historically underrepresented regions of the country. The philosophical foundation of the quota framework was to compensate for structural disparities and to ensure equitable participation of marginalized territories in the administrative architecture of the federation — not to create fresh layers of exclusion within already disadvantaged regions.
Unfortunately, the policy restructuring implemented in 2020 — whereby the previously combined quota of Gilgit-Baltistan and the erstwhile FATA was separated without any meaningful enhancement, demographic rationalization, or compensatory recalibration — has produced deeply disproportionate and manifestly unjust consequences for the talented youth of Gilgit-Baltistan. The adverse implications of this ill-conceived policy were neither unforeseen nor speculative. They had already been comprehensively highlighted in the serial publications titled “Raison d’être of Jobs’ Quota,” published on 6th, 9th, and 12th April 2020 in windowtogb.com. Over the subsequent six years, those apprehensions repeatedly resurfaced with growing intensity and now stand unequivocally vindicated by the outcome of CSS Examination 2025.
A particularly disturbing case has recently exposed the gravity of this structural imbalance: a social media report (Facebook, dated 01.05.2026) stated that one of the two CSS qualifiers from Gilgit-Baltistan, Mr. Muhammad Raza, secured an impressive overall 97th position in Pakistan in CSS 2025, yet was allocated to the Postal Group. Under the earlier combined quota arrangement of Gilgit-Baltistan and FATA, such a merit position would comfortably have secured allocation to the prestigious Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS). Astonishingly, however, under the altered quota framework, a candidate from FATA holding overall merit position reportedly 116 succeeded in obtaining allocation to PAS, while a significantly higher-ranking candidate from Gilgit-Baltistan remained deprived of that opportunity.
This disparity is neither incidental nor confined to a solitary case. Over the preceding years, numerous successful candidates from Gilgit-Baltistan have similarly been allocated to service groups incongruous with their merit positions and stated preferences. Under a fair and rationally structured quota arrangement, many of these candidates could reasonably have secured induction into highly coveted groups such as the Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS), the Foreign Service of Pakistan (FSP), and the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP), instead of being relegated to comparatively less preferred occupational groups despite superior competitive standing.
The issue, therefore, transcends the allocation of an individual candidate and points toward a deeper structural distortion embedded within the present quota framework. Such recurring inequities inevitably generate feelings of alienation, frustration, and institutional disenchantment among the educated youth of Gilgit-Baltistan — a region whose people have consistently demonstrated patriotism, resilience, intellectual capability, and academic excellence despite geographical remoteness, constitutional ambiguity, and chronic infrastructural deprivation.
Gilgit-Baltistan today possesses a rapidly expanding and increasingly competitive youth population capable of excelling at the highest national levels purely on merit. Yet the existing quota structure neither reflects the region’s evolving educational realities nor ensures reasonably proportionate representation in the federal bureaucracy. A quota mechanism that systematically disadvantages higher-merit candidates belonging to a historically marginalized and constitutionally underrepresented region fundamentally undermines the very moral, political, and administrative rationale upon which the quota philosophy rests.
The matter thus squarely falls within the broader discourse of constitutional fairness, equitable participation, and national integration. Justice in matters of representation cannot indefinitely be deferred without eroding public confidence in state institutions and weakening the sense of belonging among marginalized communities. Sustainable national cohesion demands that every federating unit and peripheral region perceive itself as a respected and fairly represented stakeholder within the state structure.
It is, therefore, imperative that policymakers, parliamentarians, constitutional experts, civil society organizations, and intellectual circles collectively raise a principled voice for the rational enhancement and equitable restructuring of the Civil Services quota regime. The youth of Gilgit-Baltistan seek neither charity nor preferential treatment; they seek only a fair, rational, and dignified opportunity to compete and serve the federation in accordance with their talent, merit, and demonstrated capability.
In this context, the longstanding public demand for enhancement of Gilgit-Baltistan’s quota in federal services to four percent merits serious and immediate consideration — a demand previously underscored in “Gilgit-Baltistan’s Economic Woes,” published in these columns on 29.04.2024. Such a reform would not merely address statistical imbalance; rather, it would constitute an important step toward restoring institutional confidence, strengthening national inclusion, and fulfilling the imperatives of justice, equity, and representative fairness within the federation of Pakistan.
Comments