Delhi High Court: While hearing a petition regarding recruitment to various posts in the Establishment of Delhi High Court which raised issues pertaining to non-compliance of National Legal Services Authority v. UOI 2014 (5) SCC 438 (‘NALSA case’) on part of the Central and State Governments in taking steps to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in order to extend all kinds of reservation not only in admissions to educational institutions but also for public appointments, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., directed to register the same as a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) and expressed concern that steps ensuring welfare of transgender persons were yet to be taken by providing them reservations in employment.
The Court stated that the NALSA case (supra) was rendered in 2014, however till date, the adequate steps which ought to have been taken for ensuring welfare of transgender persons, including making a provision for providing reservation in public employment, have not been taken. Further, the Court pointed that the Parliament had enacted Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (‘the Act’) and had also framed Rules thereunder, however, the welfare measures, which should have been made pursuant to the statutory obligations cast on the Governments under the said Act, have also not been made.
After perusing the provisions of the Act, the Court opined that for inclusion of the transgender persons in the society and to secure their full and effective participation, the Governments ought to have, by now, taken some policy decision for providing reservation to these persons in public employment as already mandated by the NALSA case (supra).
Considering that the Department of Social Welfare, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi’s notification dated 8-2-2021, which provided for relaxation of 5 years in age and of qualifying marks to the extent of 5 per cent to the transgender persons in public employment, the Court highlighted that many transgender persons may not have been able to apply because admissible age relaxation and relaxation in qualifying marks were not made available to them. Thus, the Court directed that appropriate decision should be taken for providing the benefit to transgender persons in consultation with the Delhi High Court and if such relaxations are to be made available, then the last date for submitting the application form should be extended by a month. Further, such information should then also be widely publicized by the Delhi Subordinate Selection Board.
The Court listed the matter on 19-11-2025.
[Praveen Singh v. High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 14880 of 2025, decided on 6-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Naman Jain, Advocate
For the Respondents: Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Standing Counsel with Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Kritarth Upadhyay, Arajita Verma and Vivek Sharma, Advocates, Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel (Services) with Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam and Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates, Ashish Dixit, CGSC with Umar Hashmi, Mayank Upadhyay and Iqra Sheikh, Advocates