The Madras High Court has directed the State government to frame guidelines, within four months, providing for reservation for the transgender community in government service. It instructed recruitment agencies such as the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Teachers Recruitment Board, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board and the Medical Recruitment Board to follow those guidelines scrupulously.
Unenviable condition
Justice N. Kirubakaran issued the direction while allowing a writ petition filed by S. Tharika Banu who was born a male by name S. Patchaikili but underwent sex reassignment surgery in September 2015. Though the petitioner had scored only 45.25% of marks as against the minimum requirement of 50% in Plus Two examinations, the judge directed the government to grant her admission in Bachelor of Sidha Medicine and Surgery (BSMS) course.
“In the instant case, one seat was already reserved by an interim order passed by this court on October 11, 2017. It is not as if many transgender persons have applied for seats. Only on very rare occasions, this kind of claims would be made and that has to be considered with compassion and benevolence... The minimum mark of 50% prescribed for admission into BSMS is only applicable to male and female genders and not for third gender.
Social empowerment
“Transgenders are shunned by their families. Harassment, assault, violence, especially sexual violence, denial of basic civil rights, unfair treatment, disrespect, denial of access to public places are part of their life. They are being looked down by the society as ‘sinners.’
“This court hopes that this order would be a first step to throw open doors of educational institutions for the entry of transgenders for their social empowerment,” the judge said.
The Centre and the State government had not done enough for the betterment of the transgender community despite a landmark judgement passed by the Supreme Court on April 15, 2014 in the National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India case.
“If the directions given by the Supreme Court had been complied with in time, the present petitioner would not have been knocking the doors of this court for relief,” the judge said.
