‘State Has Moral Obligation’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Transgender Reservation In Public Employment Within 6 Months
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay directed the State Government to introduce reservations for the transgender community in public employment within six months and to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as School Assistant. The Court observed that the transgender community remains at the bottom of social backwardness and underscored the urgent need for the State to mainstream their participation through affirmative measures in all aspects of life, including education and employment. The petition had arisen from the exclusion of a transgender applicant in a teacher recruitment notification, which contained no posts reserved for transgender persons. The Court held that such omission violated constitutional guarantees of equality and the mandate laid down in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.
The petitioner, a transgender woman possessing the requisite educational qualifications, applied for the post of School Assistant (Language) – Hindi, and Trained Graduate Teacher (Language) – Hindi, as notified under Notification No. 01/Mega DSC-TRC-1/2025 dated 20 April 2025 issued by the State’s School Education Department. She secured the 678th rank in the District Selection Committee examination for Eluru District but was not considered for selection on the ground that no vacancies were notified for transgender candidates. The petitioner challenged the respondents’ action of not providing posts for transgender persons, contending that it was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the principles laid down in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, and clauses 17 and 18 of G.O. Ms. No. 20 dated 30 December 2017 issued by the Women and Child Welfare Department.
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring the non-selection and non-notification of vacancies for transgender candidates as unconstitutional and prayed for a direction to appoint her as School Assistant by creating a supernumerary post for transgender women. She also filed interlocutory applications seeking interim appointment pending disposal of the writ petition and correction of a typographical error in the prayer.
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that despite 16,000 teaching posts being advertised under the 2025 notification, no transgender candidate was accommodated, which violated constitutional protections and the Supreme Court’s directive to take affirmative action. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the issue of providing reservations to transgender persons was a matter of State policy and, in the absence of a specific government policy or rule, the recruitment process could not be faulted. The Court examined the petitioner’s plea and heard both parties in detail before proceeding to determine whether the State had an obligation to extend reservation in public employment to the transgender community.
The Court observed, “Seldom, our society realises or cares to realise the trauma, agony and pain which the members of transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the transgender community.” It recorded that the petitioner, a transgender woman, had applied for the post of School Assistant but was excluded from consideration due to the absence of notified vacancies.
The Court referred extensively to National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, noting that the Supreme Court had recognised the historical and continuing marginalisation of transgender persons and their right to equality under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It extracted the portions where the Supreme Court held that “discrimination on the ground of ‘sex’ under Articles 15 and 16 includes discrimination on the ground of gender identity” and that “State is bound to take some affirmative action for their advancement so that the injustice done to them for centuries could be remedied.”
The Court stated that although Parliament had enacted the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the State had not yet provided any quota in employment or education to the transgender community. It noted, “It cannot be a matter of dispute that the transgender community is at the bottom of social backwardness.”
Citing decisions from other High Courts, including V. Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana (2023 SCC OnLine TS 1688), Mrinal Barik v. State of West Bengal (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 5920), Saratha v. Member Secretary, TNUSRB (2022 SCC OnLine Mad 92), and Kabeer C.V. v. State of Kerala (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 30), the Court recorded that similar directions and recommendations had been issued to provide reservation for transgender persons in government employment.
The Court further stated, “As the origin of the problems of transgender persons in India lies in stigma and discrimination they face in family and society, resulting in their exclusion from the socio-economic-cultural-political spectrum, there is a dire need to mainstream them and the adoption of an inclusive approach in all spheres of life including affirmative action by the State in public employment. The purpose of carving out an exception to the right of equal opportunity in employment by the introduction of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India is only to ensure that socially and economically backward communities are also allowed to come into the forefront of society and ensure intergenerational equality. The transgender community is not only socially and economically backward, but has also been abandoned by society. In these circumstances, the State has a moral obligation under the Constitution to take affirmative action on behalf of such communities.”
The Court recorded that the National Legal Services Authority judgment had been delivered more than ten years earlier and concluded that “the State cannot dodge this issue any further.”
The Court directed, “the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the State Government to provide reservations to transgenders in public employment within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of School Assistant. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri M. Solomon Raju, Advocate
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services-II
Case Title: Katru Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No.26262 of 2025
Neutral Citation: APHC010510042025
Bench: Justice Nyapathy Vijay
