Noting that it would be difficult for others to realise the discrimination suffered by transgenders, the Madras High Court has held that a transgender candidate was entitled to be recruited to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (SI).
In February 8, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) began recruitment for 1087 SI posts. The process was in three stages - a written examination, physical endurance test and viva-voice. Among over 1.85 lakh applicants, K. Prithika Yashini, a transgender, had also applied for the post. However, the petitioner’s application was rejected by TNUSRB on the ground that she did not fall under the available two categories of gender.
Thereafter, Ms. Prithika moved the High Court and she was allowed to appear for the written examination.
Aided by the High Court’s interim orders at each stage of the selection process, the petitioner managed to complete the entire recruitment process. But at the final stage, TNUSRB refused to recruit the petitioner citing various reasons, including that she failed to qualify in the physical endurance test. Ms. Prithika approached the court again.
When the petition came up for hearing, the First Bench, comprising Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, pointed out that the Board had failed to provide for the third gender category in the application form, despite a Supreme Court direction.
Referring the submissions made by the Board in its counter affidavit that two other transgender candidates were already serving as police constables in the State, the Bench said, “The social impact of such recruitment cannot be lost sight of, this would give strength to the case of transgenders. We are thus of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be recruited as SI with the hope that she would carry out the duties with dedication and commitment to advance the cause of other transgenders,” the Bench added.
The Bench also appreciated the efforts made by advocate Bhavani Subbarayan, counsel for the petitioner, and the fair stand of P.H. Arvindh Pandian, the Additional Advocate General.
“The Board failed to provide for the third gender category in the application form”
