Madras High Court Directs State To Prescribe Separate Norms For Transgender Persons In Employment And Educational Avenues

The Madras High Court has directed the state government to prescribe separate norms for transgender persons in employment and educational avenues. The court added that transgender persons should not be clubbed under male or female categories and should instead be treated as a special category and the norms extended to other special categories should be extended to them. “The second respondent is directed to treat the transgenders under special category and not to treat them under female or male category in al education and employment avenues. In every employment and educational avenues, the Government shall prescribe separate norms for transgenders which shal be below the norms prescribed for male and female candidates,” the court ruled. Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan remarked that the state government was still confused about how to place transgender persons and perpetuating this confusion by placing transgender persons under the male or female category. “Though the State Government has passed several notifications subsequent to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, but, till date, the State Government is still under the confusion and perpetuating the confusion by placing the transgender either in the female or male category along with the caste they belong,” the court observed. The court thus came to the rescue of a transwoman who wished to participate in the recruitment for a post included in Combined Civil Service Examination – II (Non-Interview Post). She had contended that by not including her under the special category, the TNPSC had denied her the opportunity to be considered. It was contended that the transgenders were not given proper opportunity un the employment and whenever there was any recruitment, they were forced to approach the court for relief. It was argued that though she had scored more than the cut-off mark prescribed for special category, she was not called for uploading documents while those below her rank were called and permitted to upload documents. The TNPSC, on the other hand, submitted that they were following the rules and guidelines prescribed by the Government and in the absence of any notification or instruction from the government, they could not treat transgender persons as a special category. In the present case, it was submitted that the petitioner had applied under the Scheduled Caste category and since she had not scored the requisite marks under that category, she was not considered. The court observed that while the Apex Court, in NALSA judgment had directed the Central and State governments to give benefits to transgender persons similar to the socially and educationally backward classes of persons, this direction had been misconstrued many times by state government and agencies of state government. The court noted that the state often placed transgender persons under the most backward community or to their caste which was against the intention of the Apex Court. The court added that through the NALSA judgment and subsequent pronouncements, the Apex Court's intention was only to extend benefits applicable to socially and educationally backward class communities to transgender persons and not to place them under that category. In the present case, the court noted that the notification was silent on treating transgender persons as a separate category and had thus failed to recognize the rights of the transgender community. The court added that there was no reason for denying to consider the petitioner under a special category. The court also remarked that every denial of opportunity to transgender people would only pull them back to live an abnormal life. The court noted that it was the Government's duty to improve their quality of life by providing sufficient opportunities which would ultimately create a balance in the society. The court thus directed the TNPSC to allow the petitioner to upload her documents for certificate verification. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Karthikeyan Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.G.Hema for TNPSC, Dr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 242 Case Title: R Anushri v The Secretary TNPSC and Others Case No: W.P.No.11197 of 2018Click here to read/download the judgment

Madras High Court Directs State To Prescribe Separate Norms For Transgender Persons In Employment And Educational Avenues

Upasana Sajeev

Tags