AP High Court Pushes State Towards Transgender Reservation in Public Jobs, Citing Karnataka Model

HYDERABAD – The Andhra Pradesh High Court has sent a strong message to the state government, expressing a clear expectation for a "positive decision" on introducing reservations for transgender persons in public employment. This development places the state at a critical juncture, potentially paving the way for a landmark policy shift that could significantly impact the rights and opportunities of the transgender community.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, has directed the state to consider the precedent set by neighboring Karnataka, which has already implemented a 1% horizontal reservation for transgender individuals in government jobs. The court's directive emerged during the hearing of an appeal filed by a transgender person, Matam Gangabhavani, challenging the exclusion of transgender individuals from a recruitment notification for Sub-Inspectors.

In its order, the Bench noted, “… this Court expects that the State Government will come with a positive decision after examining the policy of the Karnataka Government to extend 1% horizontal reservation to the transgender in the public employment at an early date.” The court has granted the government time until November 24, 2025, to formulate and present its official stance on this critical issue.

The Genesis of the Appeal: Challenging Systemic Exclusion

The case, Matam Gangabhavani v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr , stems from a writ appeal against a single-judge order that had previously dismissed a challenge to a state recruitment notification. The appellant argued that the notification, by failing to include a category for transgender persons, was a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Equality before law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), 19 (Freedom of speech and expression, including self-identification), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

The appellant’s case is firmly rooted in the Supreme Court's seminal 2014 judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India . The NALSA judgment is a cornerstone of transgender rights in India, legally recognizing transgender persons as the "third gender" and affirming their right to self-perceived gender identity. Crucially, the Supreme Court had directed both the Central and State Governments to take proactive steps to treat the transgender community as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) and extend to them all benefits of reservation in educational institutions and public appointments.

The Single Judge's Controversial Reasoning

The single-judge bench, however, had upheld the government's notification, offering a narrow interpretation of the NALSA directive. The court opined that the Supreme Court's direction was limited to classifying transgender persons as SEBCs, but did not explicitly mandate a specific percentage of reserved posts. This interpretation effectively uncoupled the classification from its intended consequence—affirmative action.

Furthermore, the single judge pointed to the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and its corresponding rules, noting that the legislation itself did not provide for reservations, focusing instead on non-discrimination and access to employment. The court concluded that while the state's failure to implement the NALSA directives might constitute grounds for contempt of court, it did not render the recruitment notification itself illegal or arbitrary. This reasoning created a legal paradox where a recognized right lacked an enforceable remedy through the invalidation of discriminatory policies.

The Division Bench's Renewed Focus on NALSA's Spirit

Dissatisfied with this outcome, the appellant elevated the matter to the Division Bench. The core of the appellant's argument was that the single judge failed to appreciate the NALSA judgment in its proper constitutional perspective. The judgment was not merely a declaratory statement but a positive command to the state to remedy historical injustice through concrete policy measures. The appellant highlighted the proactive steps taken by the Karnataka government, which, following a directive from its own High Court, amended its service rules to introduce a 1% horizontal reservation, as a stark contrast to the inaction in Andhra Pradesh.

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, informed the court that a policy on reservation for transgender persons was under consideration and that steps were being taken to implement the Supreme Court's directives. Acknowledging this, the Division Bench granted the government's request for more time to examine the feasibility of implementing a similar reservation policy, with a specific instruction to study the Karnataka model "in a proper perspective."

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

The Division Bench's stance signals a significant judicial push towards the substantive realization of the rights guaranteed in NALSA . The court's "expectation" of a "positive decision" is more than a mere suggestion; it is a strong judicial nudge that places the onus squarely on the executive to act.

For legal practitioners, this case underscores the persistent challenges in translating landmark constitutional judgments into tangible, on-the-ground policy. The single judge's initial ruling reflects a formalistic legal approach, while the Division Bench’s directive embodies a more purposive interpretation, seeking to give life and meaning to the spirit of the NALSA verdict.

The key legal questions that remain are:

1. Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservation: The Karnataka model uses horizontal reservation, which cuts across existing vertical reservation categories (SC/ST/OBC), ensuring that a transgender person from any community can avail the benefit. The adoption of this model in Andhra Pradesh would be a progressive step in line with established reservation jurisprudence.

2. Implementation of NALSA : This case highlights the nationwide issue of inconsistent and delayed implementation of the NALSA judgment. The judiciary is increasingly being called upon to supervise and compel executive action, moving beyond mere declaration of rights.

3. The Role of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019: The single judge’s reliance on the absence of a reservation clause in the 2019 Act raises questions about the interplay between statutory law and constitutional mandates. The Division Bench's approach suggests that the Act cannot be read to dilute or override the constitutional obligations established by the Supreme Court in NALSA .

The government of Andhra Pradesh is now under judicial scrutiny to act decisively. Its decision, to be presented by November 2025, will not only determine the future of public employment for transgender citizens in the state but will also serve as a barometer for the government's commitment to constitutional equality and social justice. The legal community and rights advocates will be watching closely as this case progresses, hoping it marks a definitive step towards a more inclusive and equitable society.