Back
Steps In: Transwoman Jane Kaushik Gets Green Light to Apply for Delhi Teaching Jobs, Gender Be Damned
In a swift intervention blending critique and compassion, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan issued notice to Delhi authorities and granted interim relief to transgender petitioner Jane Kaushik. The court allowed her to apply for teaching positions advertised by the Delhi government as a transgender candidate , bypassing any gender-specific notifications on the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board's () Online Application Registration System (OARS) portal. This order, passed on , in SLP(C) No. 12480/2026, underscores the limits of advisory bodies in resolving enforceable rights.
A Persistent Fight Against Exclusion
Jane Kaushik's legal odyssey traces back to , when she was unceremoniously dismissed from teaching roles at schools in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat due to her gender identity. Undeterred, she invoked before the while her writ petition (WPC No. 3401/2022) simmered. That apex court plea culminated in the landmark Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (2026 (1) SCC 336), where the court lambasted states and institutions for flouting the and its 2020 Rules. It issued binding directions for compliance, awarded her compensation, and formed an Advisory Committee under retired Judge Justice Asha Menon to tackle gaps like equal opportunity policies, grievance mechanisms, and inclusive medical care.
Kaushik's petition sought concrete remedies: separate vacancy notifications for transgender teachers, age and qualification relaxations, a recruitment policy for , full TPPR Act implementation, and permission to update her OARS profile. But in , the High Court disposed of the plea, nudging her toward the -constituted Advisory Committee to avoid "plurality of litigations." Aggrieved, she escalated to the apex court.
Petitioner's Plea vs. High Court's Deferral
Kaushik argued that the absence of transgender-specific vacancies and rigid gender binaries blocked her path to public teaching roles in Delhi, violating her rights under the TPPR Act. She highlighted her OARS registration as transgender and prior interim permissions during High Court proceedings.
The respondents, including the and , had earlier conceded OARS access for transgender applicants. However, the High Court leaned on the 's prior judgment, noting the Advisory Committee's broad mandate—even beyond referred issues—and stakeholder input, deeming it the apt forum.
Piercing the Advisory Veil: Why the Pushed Back
The bench zeroed in on the High Court's operative directions, quoting them verbatim to spotlight the flaw. While acknowledging the prior Jane Kaushik ruling had resolved many claims, it flagged the remaining hurdle: lack of separate transgender vacancies and relaxations. Crucially, the court reasoned that relegating enforceable rights to the Advisory Committee was misguided.
"
, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in disposing of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Advisory Committee as the Committee possesses no adjudicatory powers."
This distinction clarifies a key principle: advisory panels study and recommend, but courts adjudicate rights violations. The order references the High Court's own interim nod, extending it verbatim.
Key Observations
-
"Several issues raised by the petitioner before the High Court have already been addressed by this Court exhaustively in
."
-
"The Advisory Committee is currently in the process of working on the aspects broadly delineated in their remit including the formulation of a model equal opportunity policy in employment and education."
-
"We accordingly issue notice returnable on
."
-
"Even during the pendency of the writ petition before the
, the petitioner was permitted to apply under the category of transgender for the vacancies ignoring the gender mentioned qua the said vacancy. We pass the very same order and grant the very same relief."
Notice Issued, Relief Granted: Implications Unfold
The issued notice returnable , permitted dasti service, and allowed notice via standing counsel. This interim measure not only revives Kaushik's candidacy but signals to governments: TPPR Act lapses demand judicial, not just advisory, fixes.
As the Advisory Committee deliberates a model policy, this ruling reinforces transgender persons' immediate access to opportunities, potentially paving the way for broader directives on reservations and accommodations in public employment. For Kaushik, it's a foothold in Delhi's classrooms; for rights advocates, a reminder that courts remain the ultimate enforcers.
