Delhi High Court Mandates Consideration of Transgender Welfare Measures in Public Recruitment: W.P.(C) 14880/2025 - 2025-10-06

Bridging the Gap: Delhi High Court Champions Transgender Rights in Public Recruitment

In a significant judicial intervention, the Delhi High Court has elevated a recruitment dispute to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), underscoring the urgent need for systemic reform regarding transgender welfare in public employment. Led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, the Court’s bench signaled that the mere enactment of statutes is insufficient if the wheels of implementation remain stagnant.

The Conflict: A Barrier to Entry

The case, Praveen Singh vs. High Court of Delhi and Anr , originated from a challenge to an advertisement (No. 03/2025) for recruitment within the Delhi High Court establishment. The petitioner argued that the recruitment process failed to comply with established constitutional mandates, specifically regarding the rights of transgender persons. Despite a 2021 notification from the Delhi government providing for age and qualifying mark relaxations, these measures were notably absent from the recruitment drive.

The Legal Landscape: Beyond Statutes

The heart of the dispute lies in the decade-old Supreme Court ruling in National Legal Services Authority vs. UOI & Ors (2014) , which directed both Central and State Governments to treat transgender persons as "socially and educationally backward classes."

While the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was subsequently enacted, the Court expressed deep concern that "no such policy decision appears to be in sight" regarding actual reservation in public employment. The Court emphasized that section 8 of the 2019 Act explicitly mandates that the "appropriate Government shall take steps to secure full and effective participation of transgender persons and their inclusion in the society."

The Court’s Directive: A Call for Action

The Delhi High Court has acted swiftly to expand the scope of the case, impleading the Union of India, the Department of Social Welfare (GNCTD), and the National Council for Transgender Persons as respondents.

Crucially, the Court has directed the respondents to, within ten days, formulate a decision in consultation with the High Court regarding the applicability of the 2021 notification’s benefits—namely, the five-year age relaxation and 5% qualifying mark reduction—to the current recruitment cycle. Should these relaxations be adopted, the Court has signaled that the application deadline for these positions must be extended by one month to ensure equitable access.

Key Observations

• On the gap between law and practice: "The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in NALSA (supra) was rendered in the year 2014 and till date, it appears that adequate steps which ought to have been taken for ensuring welfare of transgender persons... have not been taken."
• On government obligation: " Section 8 of the said Act in no uncertain terms mandates that, 'the appropriate Government shall take steps to secure full and effective participation of transgender persons and their inclusion in the society'."
• On the judiciary's expectation: "From a perusal of various provisions under the Act, we are of the prima facie opinion that for inclusion of the transgender persons in the society and also to secure their full and effective participation, the Governments ought to have, by now, taken some policy decision for providing reservation."

Implications for the Future

By transforming this personal petition into a PIL, the High Court has signaled that the rights of transgender candidates are not merely individual grievances but matters of broad public import. The outcome of this case on November 19, 2025, will likely serve as a litmus test for how state authorities operationalize the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act across all sectors of public employment in Delhi, potentially setting a precedent for other jurisdictions across the country to follow.