|
The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Delhi government on the legal basis for the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issuing separate vacancy notifications for male and female teachers, and asked how transgender persons would be accommodated in public employment.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, by an order of October 16, framed six questions in petitions filed by Jane Kaushik and Praveen Singh, directing the government to file affidavits within 15 days. The issue before us pertains to the non-inclusion of third gender in the notifications for vacancies issued by the respondent State, the bench stated in the order. The apex court asked the government to identify the recruitment rules governing DSSSB notifications and clarify whether any constitutional provision, statute or service rule requires teaching vacancies to be advertised separately by gender. If no such requirement exists, the State must explain the rationale for the classification. The bench also asked whether the respondents propose to include transgender candidates in DSSSB vacancy notifications and, if so, how they intend to facilitate their inclusion in public employment. In Singhs petition, concerning age relaxation for transgender candidates, the top court questioned why the Delhi High Court had not considered exercising its powers under Rule 12 of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, to grant relaxation in view of the socio-economic discrimination faced by the community. The apex court will hear the case on November 19. In April, the Supreme Court had observed that the advisory committee constituted to examine systemic issues concerning transgender rights did not have adjudicatory powers. It had also prima facie questioned the Delhi High Courts decision to direct Kaushik to approach the committee instead of deciding her petition. (ANI)
|
