Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

One Matam Gangabhavani, claiming to be transgender filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare Notification vide Rc.No.216/R&T/Rect.1/2018 dated 01.11.2018, as it did not make any provision for reservation of appointment of transgender persons as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and others1 and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to make appropriate provision for transgender persons and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in Post Code No.11 - Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department in the vacant post, kept apart for the petitioner in terms of the order of the Court in W.P.No.1575 of 2019 dated 13.02.2018.

The petitioner was male by birth, underwent Sexual Reassignment Surgery in the year 2003. After the judgment of the Apex Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and others (referred supra), the petitioner changed gender identity from male to transgender in Aadhar, PAN, Voter ID, Passport in the year 2017. The petitioner also received official certificate as transgender from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner came across Notification bearing Rc.No.216/R&T/Rect.1/2018 dated 01.11.2018 for recruitment to 2014 (5) SCC 438 MSM,J WP_16770_2019 the post of Post Code No.11 - Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector of Police in Police Department. Though the petitioner was keen on appearing for the said examination through official portal, she realized that there are only two categories provided for the disclosure of gender namely „Male‟ and „Female‟. This act of non- inclusion of the transgender is violative of the direction of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and others (referred supra). Further, due to non- availability of an option to register as transgender, the petitioner was forced to mention identity as female while registering for the examination as per the said notification and the same was accepted and provided with Registration No.1012386. The petitioner appeared for the first round of recruitment process i.e Preliminary Written Test held on 16.12.2018 and scored 28% in Paper-I and 21% in Paper-II, thereby, the petitioner was declared „not qualified‟ for the next round of recruitment process. The petitioner is a member of BC community, the qualifying score for both papers is 35% respectively.

The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit, reiterating the contentions urged in the affidavit, while contending that, till date the respondents did not establish Grievance Redressal Mechanism as required under Section 11 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Section 9 of the Act comes into play and prohibits discrimination in respect of the petitioner employment and that, in the present notification, there are no transgenders to compete with the petitioners and in all possibility, the petitioner is only candidate who applied and was permitted to appear to written test and physical test also, the petitioner was not allowed. Thus, the selection process of the petitioner is pending and requested this Court to protect the petitioner‟s interest, directing the respondents to reserve one post Code No.11, Stipendiary Cadre Trainee (SCT) Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil).

Notification vide Rc.No.216/R&T/Rect.1/2018 dated 01.11.2018 was issued by State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector of Police in Police Department. The recruitment is governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.315 Home (Police-C) dated 13.10.1999. The Rules are silent as to reservations to transgenders, but fixed minimum marks to qualify for the MSM,J WP_16770_2019 physical efficiency test. But, the notification for recruitment was issued in terms of the Rules by providing minimum qualifying marks for both men and women, OC, BC, SC & ST. As per selection procedure/scheme under Clause 17, the selection procedure is at preliminary written test. Candidates shall be required to appear for Preliminary Written Test in two papers (each three hours duration) which will be qualifying. The minimum marks to be secured by the candidates in order to qualify in the Preliminary Written Test in both the papers is 40% for OCs; 35% for BCs; and 30% for SCs/STs/Ex-servicemen. If a candidate fails to secure qualifying marks even in one paper, he will be disqualified. Total marks for these two papers will not be counted for the purpose of qualification. Thus, as per the Rules framed for recruitment of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector, minimum mark is prescribed and in the absence of any reservation to the transgenders provided in the Rules and in Act No.40 of 2019, the petitioner secured 28% in Paper-I and 21% in Paper-II in the Preliminary Written Test, is ineligible for being selected, though the petitioner is the only candidate who appeared for examination in Paper-I and Paper-II in Preliminary Written Test. As the marks were fixed not on minimum marks, as prescribed in the notification and Rules, but not based on sex, only on social status, so as to enable the transgenders to represent adequately in the Police Department as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee for their adequate representation in the public employment. Therefore, it is difficult to issue a direction in favour of the respondents for selection of the petitioner as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector, since she is the only candidate at present who appeared for the examination MSM,J WP_16770_2019 and secured 28% in Paper-I and 21% in Paper-II in the Preliminary Written Test. Since the minimum marks were not fixed based on gender, but based on social status, more particularly, their backwardness and inadequacy of their representation in the public employment. Hence, I find it difficult to issue a direction as sought by the petitioner to select her as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub- Inspector.