Transgender Women Cannot Be Subjected To Same Physical Standards As Male Candidates: Gauhati High Court Directs State To Frame Separate Transgender Recruitment Framework And Specify Status Of Reservation Policy
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury hearing a PIL challenging a police recruitment advertisement alleged to be discriminatory for clubbing seats earmarked for transgender persons with posts for male candidates, has held that transgender women cannot be subjected to the same physical standards as male aspirants. The Court directed the State authorities and the Social Justice and Empowerment Department to place on record the measures proposed for a separate and inclusive recruitment framework for male and female transgender candidates and to report on the status of any reservation policy for transgender persons in education and public employment.
The petition was filed as a public interest litigation by an association representing transgender persons, challenging a recruitment advertisement issued by the Police Department, Government of Assam, for the posts of Sub-Inspector and Constable. The advertisement provided vacancies for transgender candidates but clubbed these with posts for male candidates, while prescribing separate seats for female candidates.
The petitioner contended that such clubbing was discriminatory, as it would require transgender women to undergo the same physical and other recruitment standards as male candidates. They argued that seats should be specifically earmarked for transgender persons, with candidates allowed to apply as male or female transgender applicants and assessed under standards applicable to male and female candidates respectively.
The State submitted that any separate allocation of seats would amount to reservation and must follow a policy decision based on empirical data. During the hearing, it was placed on record that a State Level Transgender Protection Cell had been constituted under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, and that a proposal was under consideration to recognize the transgender community as a socially and educationally backward class for reservation in education and employment.
The Court recorded that the petition sought to address the grievance regarding an allegedly discriminatory advertisement, noting that “the number of seats allotted were clubbed together for male candidates and transgender persons. Separate number of seats were fixed for females.” It was stated that the petitioner’s primary concern was twofold: “that there should be some allocation of seats for the transgender persons and within such allocated number of seats, it should be opened for the candidates to apply as a male transgender or a female transgender so as to be subjected to the same rigor as a binary male and female, respectively.”
The Court observed the State’s stand that such allocation relates to policy, as “unless a policy is framed, the Director General of Police or the recruitment body cannot go for such separate allocation, which would amount to reservation,” and that reservation percentages must be based on empirical data.
The bench noted the constitution of the State Level Transgender Protection Cell on 14.10.2022 under the Rules of 2020 and recorded that transgender persons were being provided identity cards enabling access to specific privileges. The Court also observed that the Supreme Court had recognized transgender persons as a third gender and that “the Governments of the States were directed to provide them with all kinds of reservation in education and employment, treating them as socially and educationally backward class.”
Regarding the proposal of the Social Justice & Empowerment Department, the Court recorded: “a proposal has been mooted to recognize the transgender community as a socially and educationally backward class, which will be placed before the State Cabinet for approval.” The Court further stated that after approval, “it would be the bounden duty of the recruiting bodies to allocate special number of seats.”
The Court also stated that in allocating seats, “special care would be required to be taken with respect to the kind of rigors that the members of transgenders would be subjected to,” and suggested that “male transgender would be subjected to the rigors like male candidates and female transgenders be subjected to the rigors of the female candidates.” The bench observed that this approach aligns with the objectives of the Rules of 2020, whose purpose is “to provide for protection of rights of transgender persons and their welfare.”
The Court recorded that “special measures are still lacking for providing them the access to employment,” and stated that the State must take steps ensuring “full and effective participation of transgender persons for their inclusion in society and access to their employment.”
The Court directed that “Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. Das, learned Advocate representing the Social Justice & Empowerment Department shall apprise this Court, by the next date, as to the future course of action, especially with respect to the status of male and female transgenders and steps to make the recruitment process in future to be inclusive for them. “This Court would also like to be informed that whether the proposal for reservation in favour of transgenders in education and employment has received the approval of the Cabinet.”
The matter was ordered to be “listed again for further consideration on 11.02.2026 along with PIL No.74/2018 and PIL No.2/2022.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Swati B. Baruah, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Mr. D.P. Borah, Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department; Mr. R.M. Das, Standing Counsel, Social Justice & Empowerment Department; Mrs. R.S. Chowdhury, Advocate.
Case Title: All Assam Transgender Association v. State of Assam & Others
Neutral Citation: GAHC010007972022
Case Number: PIL/6/2022
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
