'State Has Moral Obligation': AP High Court Directs Reservation For Transgender Persons In Public Employment Within Six Months

In this regard, Justice Nyapathy Vijay stated,

“As the origin of the problems of transgender persons in India lies in stigma and discrimination they face in family and society, resulting in their exclusion from the socio-economic-cultural-political spectrum, there is a dire need to mainstream them and the adoption of an inclusive approach in all spheres of life including affirmative action by the State in public employment. The purpose of carving out an exception to the right of equal opportunity in employment by the introduction of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India is only to ensure that socially and economically backward communities are also allowed to come into the forefront of society and ensure intergenerational equality. The transgender community is not only socially and economically backward, but has also been abandoned by society. In these circumstances, the State has a moral obligation under the Constitution to take affirmative action on behalf of such communities.”

The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a Transgender woman, who possessed the requisite qualifications for the post of School Teacher (Language), however, was not being considered for the same in the absence of any notified vacancies.

Thus, through the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the non-issuance of vacancies for transgenders and the exclusion from accommodation in the 16000 proposed posts under DSC-2025, as being violative of the mandate of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and others [2014 (5) SCC 438]— where the Supreme Court had declared that transgender persons must be legally recognised as the “third gender” who possessed the right to self-identify their gender, and had directed the Centre and State Governments to take necessary steps to treat them as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) and extend all kinds of reservation in admission in educational institutions and public appointments.

The State argued that special reservation to transgenders is a policy decision and in the absence of the same, the recruitment cannot be faulted.

The Court observed that the transgender community is one of the most underprivileged communities in the country and has historically been at the receiving end of societal discrimination and ostracism. While the Supreme Court in NALSA had directed the States to take affirmative action under Article 16 towards the advancement of the transgenders as SEBCs, particularly in terms of employment, the Court noted that no quota in employment or in educational institutions was provided to the community by the State.

With more than 10 years having been passed since the pronouncement of the NALSA judgment, the Single Judge noted that the State cannot further dodge the issue and held,

“… the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the State Government to provide reservations to transgenders in public employment within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of School Assistant.”

Case Details:

Case Number: W.P.No.26262 of 2025

Case Title: Katru Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order