Madras High Court
Manju vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2018
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.No.2790 of 2018
Manju ...Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Home Secretary,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services-
Recruitment Board,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 18.
3.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services-
Recruitment Board,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 18.
4.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act
against the order of this Court in W.P.No.22551 of 2017 dated
23.08.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Appellant : Mr.S.Thilageswaran
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Selvashanmugasundaram
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Subramonium Prasad, J) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the WP.No.22551 of 2017 by an order dated 22.08.2017 passed by this Court, the writ petitioner is filed this writ appeal.
2. The writ petitioner is a transgender. A notification was published in the month of February 2017 for the recruitment of Grade-II Constable. Educational qualification required for being eligible to be appointed as Grade-II Constable is 10th standard. The writ petitioner possesses the necessary educational qualification and applied for the same. The writ petitioner took the written examination held on 21.05.2017. The writ petitioner cleared the examination. The writ petitioner also qualified for the physical examination held on 31.07.2017.
3. On 03.08.2017, the writ petitioner was called for the final test in which the petitioner had to participate in long jump, short put and 100 metres running. While running in 100 metres, the writ petitioner tumbled and could complete the 100 metres http://www.judis.nic.in 3 only in 21.30 seconds as against the time fixed on 17.5 seconds. Since the writ petitioner could not complete the 100 metres within the requisite time, the writ petitioner was not selected and was disqualified. The disqualification order was given to the writ petitioner. The disqualification has been challenged by the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition.
4. In the writ petition it was contended by her that transgenders should have been treated separately and should have been subject to a different yardstick. It was stated that since there was no separate examination for transgenders, the entire selection process is faulty. It was also stated that the writ petitioner was the sole transgender participating in the selection process and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been selected as a Constable in the category reserved for transgenders.
5. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge stating that the writ petitioner was not the only transgender who participated in the proceedings. The learned Additional Advocate General who appeared before the learned Single Judge had informed the Court that there were 25 transgender candidates participated in the recruitment process and there was a possibility of few trans gender candidates being http://www.judis.nic.in 4 selected in the examination. The learned Single Judge also found that the transgenders were permitted to participate in 100 metres running along with the women candidates and this itself is a concession shown by the State in favour of transgenders. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. This order is under challenge in the present writ appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
7. When a pointed question was asked as to how many transgenders got selected in the examination, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that about 3 transgenders have been appointed as Constable. As found by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner 25 transgenders participated in the selection process and the writ petitioner was not the lone transgender. The petitioner stumbled in the 100 metres running and could not complete the 100 metres running in the specified time. After participating in the selection process, the writ petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the entire selection process.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
8. There is no merit in the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. No Costs.
(S.M.K.,J) (S.P.,J)
21.12.2018
gsp/pkn
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1.The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services-
Recruitment Board,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 18.
3.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services-
Recruitment Board,
Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 18.
4.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
S.MANIKUMAR,J
&
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J
gsp/Pkn
W.A.No.2790 of 2018
21.12.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in