The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the State government has a constitutional duty to implement reservations in public employment for the transgender community, recognising their social and educational backwardness. The judgment reinforces that transgender persons are entitled to affirmative action under Article 16 of the Constitution, in line with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India case, which mandated the State to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward and to extend them reservation benefits in education and public employment.
The case arose from a petition filed by a transgender woman who had applied for the post of School Teacher (Language) under the District Selection Committee’s recruitment process for 2025. She contended that the recruitment notification failed to provide for any reservation or consideration for transgender candidates, thereby excluding the community from equal participation in government employment. The petitioner argued that the State’s inaction amounted to a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as it perpetuated systemic discrimination and ignored binding judicial directions.
In response, the State contended that the introduction of reservations for transgender persons was a matter of policy and that, in the absence of a formal notification or rule, it could not modify the recruitment process. However, the High Court rejected this argument, observing that more than a decade had passed since the NALSA judgment, yet the State had failed to issue any policy framework or notification to extend reservation benefits to transgender persons. The Court stated that such prolonged inaction could not be justified as a policy choice, as it amounted to a denial of constitutional and statutory obligations to ensure social inclusion.
The Court further emphasized that transgender persons have historically faced severe marginalization, exclusion from educational and employment opportunities, and systemic prejudice that have placed them among the most disadvantaged sections of society. It held that constitutional equality requires the State to adopt proactive and positive measures to address this exclusion, and that the right to equality under Article 16 must be interpreted broadly to include equality of outcome, not merely equality of opportunity.
In its directions, the High Court ordered the State government to frame and notify a reservation policy specifically for transgender persons in public employment within six months from the date of the judgment. It also directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s application for the teaching post in accordance with the forthcoming policy. The Court clarified that while the State retained discretion regarding the quantum of reservation, it could not indefinitely postpone implementation once the constitutional mandate had been recognized.
This judgment marks a significant step in the recognition of transgender rights within the framework of affirmative action. It underscores the principle that inclusivity in public employment is essential for achieving substantive equality and societal integration of marginalized communities. The ruling serves as a reminder that constitutional promises of equality must translate into concrete policy measures and not remain symbolic declarations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.