Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 1103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
Katru Rekha - Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government, School Education Department – Respondent
W.P.No.26262 of 2025
Decided On : 06-11-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri. M. Solomon Raju.
For the Respondents: G.P. for Services -II
The State is obligated to provide reservations to the transgender community in public employment, affirming protections against discrimination under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 15 and 16 - Employment of transgender individuals - The court emphasized the necessity for the State to ensure equal opportunities and affirmative action for the transgender community in public employment, reflecting on historical discrimination faced by this community. (Paras 8, 10, 17)
(B) Public Employment - The court directed that the State Government must provide reservations to transgenders in public employment in compliance with prior judicial mandates within six months. (Paras 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a transgender individual, was not considered for appointment to a school assistant position despite meeting qualifications, as no vacancies for transgenders were notified, prompting this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the State has a moral and legal obligation to provide reservations for transgender individuals in public employment.
Issues: The main issues were uneven representation of transgender individuals in employment opportunities and the State's policy decisions regarding reservations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Articles 15 and 16 protect against discrimination based on sex, including gender identity, and mandated affirmative action for the transgender community to remedy social injustices.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of, directing State to provide reservations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recognition of trauma faced by transgender community. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's application highlights lack of vacancies for transgenders. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. state's policy decisions affect transgender employment opportunities. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. historical oppression of transgenders and legal provisions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. various high courts directing reservations for transgenders. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. need for affirmative action and inclusion of transgender community. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. writ petition disposed to direct state action. (Para 18) |
ORDER :
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
“Seldom, our society realises or cares to realise the trauma, agony and pain which the members of transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological sex. Our society often ridicules and abuses the transgender community and in public places like railway stations, bus-stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are side-lined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society’s unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change.”
2. This is the opening paragraph in the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India , [ (2014) 5 SCC 438 ] while dealing with the issues concerning the transgender community.
3. The Petitioner is a Transgender (Woman). As the petitioner had requisite qualification, she applied for the post of School Assistant (Language) Hindi post and also TGT (Language) Hindi notified for recruitment under Notification No.01/Mega DSC-TRC- 1/2025, dated 20.04.2025. The Petitioner had secured 678th rank in DSC-2025 examination of Eluru District, However, she is not being considered for appointment as no vacancies were notified. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed questioning the non-notification of vacancies for transgenders as being contrary to the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority’s case (1 supra).
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that out of the proposed posts of 16,000 under the DSC-2025 Notification, not a single transgender was being accommodated and the same is contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority’s case (1 supra).
5. The learned Government Pleader Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao would submit that the issue of providing special reservation to the transgenders is a policy decision to be taken by the State, and in the absence of a policy decision, the recruitment cannot be faulted.
6. Heard Sri M.Solmon Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for the Respondents.
7. Reasoning: One of the most underprivileged communities in this country is the transgender community. Historically and to the present day, transgender individuals have been shunned by society. In National Legal Services Authority’s case (1 supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the grievances of the Transgender community. In the said Judgment, references to transgenders in Ramayana, Mahabharata, Jain Texts, the Ottoman Empire and Mughal rule in medieval India, and their deterioration during colonial rule on account of the Criminal Tribes Act,1871 were made.
8. Further, Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and Article 16 of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS , 1966 (ICCPR), Judgements of foreign Courts regarding transgender individuals and legislation were also referred. Coming to the Indian Scenario, specifically concerning employment, there was a direction to the States to take affirmative action under Article 16 of the Constitution of India at paragraph 67. The Transgenders vis-a-vis Articles 15 and 16 of the constitution of India were from paragraphs 63 to 68 of the judgem
