A public interest litigation suit was recently filed in the Bombay High Court, requesting that Supreme Court guidelines mandating transgender inclusion in public sector jobs be implemented. The complaint, filed by the NGOs Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha (SANGRAM) and Muskaan Sanstha, as well as two transgender people, claimed that the lack of inclusion of the ‘third gender’ category in public-sector recruitment violates the Constitution’s guarantees of equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and dignity.
According to them, the denial of inclusion is in violation of the Supreme Court’s directive in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India, which mandated that transgender people be included in public-sector employment under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Citizens [SEBC] is a fundamental right under Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
One of the petitioners attempted to apply for a job with Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company (Mahatransco) but was unable to do so because the ‘third gender’ option was not included on the application forms.
“The state of Maharashtra has failed to fulfil its Constitutional obligations under Article 14 and Article 21 towards members of the transgender community in Maharashtra,” the PIL stated, adding that the non-inclusion of transgender “amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 which guarantee right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and right to life and dignity,” according to the NALSA judgement
The petitioner was then directed to email Mahatransco’s Human Resources department, but no response was ever received. When I applied for a job opening at Indian Rare Earths Limited, I had a similar experience.
Another petitioner had completed the required training for a police constable position but was turned down because the ‘third gender’ option was not available.
The petitioners were allegedly deprived of their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution because their employment was denied based on their gender identity, according to the complaint.
As a result, it was argued that changes to the Act’s service rules are urgently needed to allow members of the transgender community to apply for public services, as they currently do not have access to them as they do not even apply for government recruitment, given that the employment is restricted to the existing gender binary.
As a result, the petitioners asked the Court to order the State government to include the term “third gender” in all of its recruitment, including at institutions under its control, as well as in all relevant statutes. It also prayed for appropriate ‘third gender’ horizontal reservation in all recruitment.