Madras High Court remarks transgenders are already part of most backward classes; Dismisses plea seeking separate reservations for them in government jobs

Madras High Court

   

Madras High Court: A Division Bench of Munishwar Nath Bhandari and N Mala JJ. dismissed the plea seeking direction to the State granting separate reservations for transgender persons for government jobs in view of the landmark judgment National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 wherein a Government Order has already been issued by the State to treat the transgender under the category of Most Backward Class ‘MBC' to enable themselves of the benefit of reservation in Government employment.

The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the State ‘respondents' to consider the representation of the President, Indian Transgender Initiative ‘petitioner' seeking reservation for the third gender in the Government jobs in reference to Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

State submitted that in the judgment National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, a direction was given to the Central and State Governments to take steps to treat the transgender as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, and the Government of Tamil Nadu issued Government Order ‘GO Ms. No. 28' dated 06-04-2015, whereby the transgender were brought under the category of Most Backward Class under Sl No. 36C of Schedule VI in ‘GO Ms. No.85' dated 29-07-2008 for reservation of seats in educational institutions and appointments in the services of the State.

The Court thus observed that the transgender has already been brought under the category of Most Backward Classes and they are getting reservation.

The Court held “we find the present writ petition to be unnecessary, as the necessary Government Order has already been issued to treat the transgender under the category of Most Backward Class to enable them avail the benefit of reservation in Government employment.”

[P Sudha v. The Secretary, WP No. 16113 of 2022, decided on 29-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

M. Madhu Prakash, Advocate, for the Petitioner;

R.Shunmugasundaram, P. Muthukumar, Alagu Gowtham and Shakeena, Advocates, for the Respondents 1 & 2.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

The Supreme Court Collegium stated that every individual is entitled to maintain their own dignity and individuality, based on sexual orientation. Senior Advocate Kirpal’s openness about his orientation goes to his credit and rejecting his candidature on this ground would be contrary to the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

We Recommend

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.