PolicyCourts
Supreme Court asks Delhi to justify separate male and female teacher vacancies, and say where transgender candidates fit
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran framed six questions for the Delhi government and its recruitment board, and gave them 15 days to answer on affidavit.
Key points
- The court asked why DSSSB advertises teaching posts separately for men and women.
- It wants to know whether and how transgender candidates will be included in the notifications.
- The Delhi government must file affidavits within 15 days; the case returns on 19 November.
The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi government to explain why its recruitment board advertises teaching jobs separately for men and women, and how it plans to make room for transgender candidates in public employment.
In an order dated 16 October and reported on Friday, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran framed six questions for the government and the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). They want to know which recruitment rules govern the board’s notifications, and whether any constitutional provision, law or service rule requires teaching vacancies to be split by gender. If none does, the state must explain the reason for the classification.
The bench also asked whether the respondents intend to include transgender candidates in DSSSB vacancy notices, and if so, how. “The issue before us pertains to the non-inclusion of third gender in the notifications” for vacancies issued by the state, the order says. The government has 15 days to reply on affidavit.
Two petitions
The questions arise from two cases. Jane Kaushik challenged the absence of a third-gender category in DSSSB teacher notifications. The Delhi High Court sent her to an advisory committee on transgender rights instead of deciding her petition. In April the Supreme Court said that committee had no power to adjudicate, and it has now questioned, prima facie, the High Court’s decision to send her there.
In the second, Praveen Singh is seeking age relaxation for transgender candidates. The bench asked why the High Court had not considered its power under Rule 12 of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, given the “socio-economic discrimination” the community faces.
The matter will be heard again on 19 November.