< Back to other cases

SARATHA V. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU UNIFORMED SERVICES RECRUITMENT BOARD

Read the full judgement here
citation:

MANU/TN/1651/2022

court:

Madras High Court

judges:

M.S. Ramesh, J.

Facts:
A writ petition was filed challenging the concessions and relaxations granted by the
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) for transgender
candidates in the notifications calling for applications to the post of Grade-II Police
Constables.

Court Decision and Reasoning:
The High Court distinguished reservations from concessions and relaxations noting
that concessions and relaxations are tools to enable reserved category candidates to
compete and seek the benefit of reservation. The Government had provided
reservations to include transwomen under the 30% quota for women but had said that
transmen would only be considered under the general category. The Court held that
the failure of the State to provide special reservation for transgender persons violated
the directions in NALSA. It also held that the relaxation of upper age limit in applying
for the posts cannot be termed to be a ‘reservation’ but was a concession. Depriving
transmasculine persons from availing the benefit of relaxations was a violation of their
right to self-determination as well the rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) and therefore
unconstitutional. The Court quashed the disqualification of the petitioners and passed
the following directions:

  • The TNUSRB was directed to immediately subject the petitioners to the
    necessary physical tests in accordance with the relaxed norms
    applicable for women candidates and complete the process within 8
    weeks.
  • Government of Tamil Nadu was recommended to provide special
    reservations for transgender persons in future public employments.
  • Government of Tamil Nadu was also recommended to provide
    relaxations in the physical measurement tests, endurance tests and
    physical efficiency tests for transmen and transgender persons on par
    with the concessions extended to women candidates and other socially
    and economically backward classes.

Significance:
This is an important ruling where the Court distinguished the need for affirmative action
benefits for women and transgender persons and ruled that transgender persons must
be given a separate category of reservation.