Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published On: February 04, 2022 at 16:48 IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to put aside the Government Notification on the basis that it did not provide any Reservation to the Transgender people in the Police Department.
Justice Satyanarayana Murthy, in his Order elaborated the issues being faced by the Transgender Community and directed the Stated to conduct a survey regarding the problems faced by the Transgender Community.
With reference to the previous Supreme Court Judgement, Justice Murthy stated that the, “Therefore, it is appropriate to issue direction to the State to undertake study on the problems faced by Transgenders, while holding that the Reservation as directed by the Supreme Court is only vertical and making provision for horizontal Reservation based on sex or gender is contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the Judgment of the Apex Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (referred Supra) Ex Facie. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the principle laid down by the Karnataka High Court and Madras High Courts in the Judgments referred Supra to provide horizontal Reservations to Transgenders”.
The High Court was considering the Plea filed, which sought to declare the 2018 Notification issued by the State Police as Arbitrary, Illegal and Violative of Article 14, Article 15, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution because it does not secure any provision for Transgender Reservation.
The Petition was filed by Matan Gangabhavani, a Transgender person who asserted that the Notification was the Violation of the NALSA Judgment.
The Petitioner had applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector of Police and in the Application the Petitioner had to fill in the identity as “Female” because of only two categories being provided.
The Petitioner argued before the High Court that the NALSA Judgement recommended Reservation but the State Government did not provide any column for the Reservation of the Transgender Community.
The Counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner was born as Male and had converted himself into Trans – Female later. Thus, the Petitioner was not eligible to claim any benefit.
The Counsel also informed the Court that the Petitioner did not secure the minimum marks as prescribed in the notification.
The High Court after observing all the arguments and submissions Quashed the Petition, while asking the Government to look into and resolve the problems being faced by the Transgender community.
