New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Delhi government on non-inclusion of the third gender in recruitment notifications for teaching posts, raising a series of questions on the legal basis for segregating vacancies between male and female candidates and the manner in which transgender persons can be accommodated in public employment.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran directed the respondents to file their affidavits within 15 days, raising a series of questions concerning the recruitment rules governing vacancies advertised by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).
The Justice Pardiwala-led Bench asked whether the rules require teaching posts to be advertised separately for male and female candidates and, if not, what objective such a classification serves.
It also sought to know whether the authorities propose to include the third gender in recruitment notifications issued through the DSSSB and how transgender persons would be accommodated in public employment.
The apex court was hearing a recent petition filed by Praveen Singh, raising issues relating to transgender persons’ access to public employment and age relaxation.
The proceedings in the related matter stem from a petition filed by Jane Kaushik challenging a December 18, 2025, judgment of the Delhi High Court in which she had sought separate vacancies for transgender persons in teaching positions, relaxation in minimum qualifications and age requirements, and a recruitment policy for transgender persons in government appointments.
In an earlier order, the Supreme Court had observed that the High Court prima facie erred in disposing of the petition by directing the petitioner to approach an advisory committee, as the committee did not possess adjudicatory powers.
The apex court had also allowed Kaushik to apply under the transgender category for vacancies, irrespective of the gender specified in the recruitment notification, continuing the relief previously granted by the Delhi High Court during the pendency of her writ petition.
Kaushik had contended that despite being registered on the DSSSB’s Online Application Registration System (OARS) portal, she could face exclusion at the stage of appointment because the recruitment process considers either male or female candidates, as specified in the relevant advertisement.
The Supreme Court had earlier said that several other issues raised by the petitioner had been addressed in its judgment in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, which dealt with the implementation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, and the rules framed under it.
The apex court had also constituted an advisory committee chaired by former Justice Asha Menon to examine issues including an equal opportunity policy, reasonable accommodation for transgender persons, grievance redressal mechanisms, gender and name change, inclusive medical care and safeguards for gender-diverse persons.
(IANS)
