What’s the matter?
Petitioner Ganga Kumar seeks to provide proper and effective reservations to transgender people through the High Court. The Supreme Court verdict was re-cited by the petitioner for the same mandate.
Rituraj Singh Rathore argued for the case on behalf of the petitioner, submitted the apex court’s detailed guidelines and directions on the issue, and informed that the Rajasthan government has yet to implement this.
Further, he pointed out to the Court that the ruling of The Hon’ble Supreme Court had examined the rights of transgender in fields including government services in the case of the National Legal Services Authority.
He also explained the Court’s supportive stance on admission to educational institutions and the appointment to public services.
What does the Court say?
The Supreme Court inferred that transgender persons are a socially and educationally backward class of citizens and subsequently directed governments to provide them with reservations in cases of admission to educational institutions and for ic appointments.
Meanwhile, Additional Advocate General Mrs. Manish Vyas, advocating for the Rajasthan government, said it is a government prerogative to provide reservations for government jobs and admission to educational institutions.
The High Court bench dismissed his heated disagreement, thereby issuing directions to the government to make reservations. The Court, in its directive, provided four months to the State to carry out the orders.
The legal views.
Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas have been granted four months to abide by the order.
Ganga Kumari filed a writ petition in terms of the mandate of the Supreme Court seeking effective reservations for the transgender people placing the precedence of the case National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of India & Ors.
The State had opposed the plea tabled by the respondent and claimed that this is a matter of State’s prerogative as to provided reservations to the manner and the extent to which it shall rescue them.
Also, it was pointed out that the petitioner can’t seek that the reservations in a particular way or to the extent should be provided to her.
While disagreeing, the Court stands clear that the State is left with no option but to implement the directives and also included the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment,
The Bench observed that, It has been categorically directed to the Central Government and State Government to take steps to treat transgender persons are a socially and educationally backward class of citizens and subsequently led governments to take steps to provide them with reservations in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.
Such a direction puts forth an obligation on the part of the State government to implement reservation in such manner and to such extent as it may decide based on relevant information available.
The Supreme Court said that much time has elapsed since the directions were issued. The State shall have to introduce proper rules, regulations, and legislation to provide assistance and necessary treatment to the community by now.
Considering the nature of the exercise required to be undertaken, the State must complete the training expeditiously within four months.
The Court allowed the petitioner to participate in selecting for various positions. It also ruled that her candidature shall not be rejected only because the petitioner is of the third gender.
Adv. Rituraj Singh Rathore appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while AAG Manish Vyas and D.D. Chilling seemed to defend the respondents.
Case Title: Ganga Kumari v. the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
Edited By- Subbuthai Padma
Published By- Satheesh Kumar
