Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The NALSA's case (supra) came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.04.2014. However, in disregard to these declarations of the Constitutional rights of TGs and the consequential directions, a notification for direct recruitment was published by the TNUSRB on 08.02.2015 and one aggrieved TG namely, Ms. K.Prithika Yashini had filed a Writ Petition before this Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis against TNUSRB in W.P.No.15046 of 2015 [K.Prithika Yashini (TG) V. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai], seeking for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Hon'ble Division Bench in its order dated 03.11.2015, took note of the fact that the directions in NALSA's case (supra) was not complied with by TNUSRB, which resulted in rejection of the candidature of the petitioner therein. After taking into consideration of the plea of the TGs in general and K.Prithika Yashini's case (supra) in particular, held that she would be entitled for appointment to the post of Sub- Inspector of Police. In accordance with the order, Ms. K.Prithika Yashini became the first TG to be appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police.

17. In the present case, the first aspect that arises for consideration is as to whether the TNUSRB had implemented the directions in NALSA, as well as in Aradhana cases' (supra), to its true intent and spirit?

18. After the judgment in NALSA was pronounced on 15.04.2014, the notification for the year 2015 was published on 08.02.2015 and the directions in NALSA was totally ignored. This led the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in K.Prithika Yashini's case (supra) to express its anguish on the failure of TNUSRB to adhere to the directions in NALSA and consequently, enabled the candidate therein for appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspector.

Hence, these inadequate privileges, claimed as reservation by the TNUSRB, is a transgression by misconception, infringing their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 16(1).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Failure to provide relaxations/concessions to the TGs-
Men or Third Gender in the physical tests:-
30. In the recruitment notifications of TNUSRB, various relaxations/concessions have been extended to the Women/TGs.

39. The same proposition was stressed in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., case (supra) in the following manner:-

“18. The challenge, thus, in effect, is to the executive policy regulating trade in liquor in Delhi. It is well settled that the courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40. By adopting the ratio in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the decision of TNUSRB to combine the TGs, who had opted for female category, along with the vacancies reserved for Women deprives equality to them which is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Likewise, when NALSA specifically directed the Central and State Governments to provide reservation for the TGs in matters of public appointments, the conduct of TNUSRB in depriving the TGs, who are in the male category of any kind of reservations in the vacancies, is also opposed to Articles 14 and 16(1). Thus, the manner in which the respondents had violated the equality of opportunity to the TGs in the impugned notification, is unconstitutional, arbitrary and unfair.