Madras High Court orders state to prescribe special norms for transgender people in employment and education pathways

“The second respondent is directed to treat transgenders under a separate category and not to treat them under the category of women or men in other education and employment paths. In each employment and education pathway, the government will set separate rates for transgenders, which will be below the rates set for male and female candidates.“, the court decided.

Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan noted that the state government was still confused about how to place transgender people and perpetuating this confusion by placing transgender people under either male or female category.

“Although the State Government has passed several notifications after the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, but, till date, the State Government is still in confusion and perpetuating the confusion by placing the transgender either in the category of female or male along with the caste they belong to“, the court noted.

The court thus came to the rescue of a trans woman who wanted to participate in the recruitment for a post included in the Combined Civil Service Examination – II (Non-Interview Post). She had alleged that by not including her in the special category, the TNPSC had denied her the opportunity to be considered.

It was alleged that transgenders were not given adequate opportunity for employment and whenever there was any recruitment, they were forced to approach the court for relief. It was argued that even though she had scored more than the prescribed mark for the particular category, she was not called to upload documents, while those below her rank were called and allowed to upload documents.

The TNPSC, on the other hand, submitted that they were following the rules and guidelines laid down by the government and in the absence of any notification or guidance from the government, they could not treat transgender persons as a separate category. In the instant case, it was submitted that the petitioner had applied in the Scheduled Caste category and since she had not obtained the required marks in that category, she was not considered.

The court observed that while the Appellate Court, in the NALSA judgment had directed the central and state governments to provide benefits to transgender persons similar to the socially and educationally backward classes of persons, this direction had been misinterpreted many times by the state government and state agencies. government.

The court noted that the state often placed transgender people under the most backward community or their own caste, which was against the intention of the Supreme Court. The court added that through the NALSA decision and subsequent pronouncements, the Appellate Court’s intention was only to extend the 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 pointed out that the notification was silent on the treatment of transgender persons as a separate category and thus did not recognize the rights of the transgender community. The court added that there was no reason to deny the applicant consideration under a particular category.

The court also noted that any denial of opportunity to transgender people will only attract them 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 that would ultimately create a balance in society.

Thus, the court directed the TNPSC to allow the petitioner to upload its documents for verification of the certificate.

The applicant’s lawyer: ZSKarthikeyan