Introduction
In a landmark ruling, the Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal government to implement a 1% reservation for transgender persons in public employment. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in the NALSA v. Union of India case, which mandated reservations for transgender individuals in education and employment.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a petition filed by Mrinal Barik, a transwoman, who sought an appointment as a teacher. Despite passing the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) in 2014 and 2022, Barik was not called for the counseling process or interview, prompting her to seek legal redress. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, who presided over the case, acknowledged the failure of the West Bengal government to implement any reservations for transgender persons despite a state policy from 2022 advocating for their equal treatment in employment.
Court’s Observations
Justice Mantha referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in the NALSA case, which called for extensive welfare measures for transgender persons, including reservations. The High Court noted that the lack of implementation of these measures in West Bengal necessitated judicial intervention. The court explicitly directed the Chief Secretary of the West Bengal government to ensure a 1% reservation for transgender persons in all public employment positions.
Specific Directives
In addition to the general directive for reservations, the court made specific provisions for the petitioner, Mrinal Barik. The court ordered that Barik be given special consideration for an interview and counseling session to facilitate her appointment as an assistant teacher in the primary section. The court emphasized that this appointment should be made against future vacancies, ensuring that appropriate relaxations are made to secure Barik’s employment.
Legal Representation
The petitioner was represented by a team of advocates including Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Imtiaz Akhtar, Badrul Karim, Indrani Roy, and Sarajit Roy. The state’s defense included advocates Supriyo Chattopadhyay and Iti Dutta, while the West Bengal Board of Primary Education was represented by advocates Saikat Banerjee, Ratul Biswas, and Kaushik Chowdhury.
Broader Implications
This ruling sets a significant precedent for the implementation of reservations for transgender persons in public employment across India. It reinforces the need for states to adhere to the Supreme Court's directives and implement policies that promote the inclusion and welfare of transgender individuals. By mandating a 1% reservation, the Calcutta High Court has taken a substantial step towards ensuring equal employment opportunities for transgender persons, addressing historical injustices, and promoting social justice.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s decision to mandate a 1% reservation for transgender persons in public employment is a pivotal moment in the fight for transgender rights in India. This judgment not only aligns with the Supreme Court’s directives but also highlights the role of the judiciary in enforcing constitutional rights and ensuring the implementation of progressive policies. The court's order provides a clear pathway for the inclusion of transgender persons in the workforce, paving the way for greater social and economic equality.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.