MUMBAI: In what may make it a happier holi for the transpersons, the Maharashtra government on Monday informed the Bombay high court that it would, within a week, issue a government resolution (GR) to provide for a third window for transgenders in all public employment and education enrolment, in addition to those for male and female candidates.
The state will also in a week make an amendment to the Police Recruitment Rules providing physical standards for transgenders for the posts of constables and drivers, Maharashtra advocate general Birendra Saraf said before the HC bench of Acting Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne.
Saraf, in his statement, also said, “Within one week, a committee will be formed to submit a report for Transgender Guidelines and the committee shall submit a report in eight weeks or two months.”
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Vinayak Kashid, filed last year, seeking compliance by the state of a landmark 2014 ruling of the Supreme Court in making and implementing a policy for transpersons in public jobs.
Kashid was seeking a directive to MahaTransco to provide reservations in jobs for the transgender community.
The petitioner had come across an advertisement issued by MahaTransco on May 4 to recruit Assistant Engineers (Transmission) on 170 vacant posts but noted it was in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in the National Legal Services Authority Vs Union of India case, which had recognised several rights for transgender community.
The top court had ordered states to reserve some seats in government jobs for transgender persons.
With no reservations for the trans community and no response from the authorities, the petition was filed before the HC to address the violation of the community’s fundamental rights.
The petition, argued by advocate Kranti LC, was first heard last June by then Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Amjad Sayed.
The HC noted Kashid is aggrieved by non-compliance of the SC directions with regard to reservations for transgenders in the matter of recruitment.
Recruitment for the post of assistant engineers (Transmission) in the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. Was on at the time.
Last December, the HC had directed the state to file an affidavit by January 9, 2023 and from the principal secretary of the social justice department sought to know the state’s stand on the policy for reservation for transgender in Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (MSETCL).
The state electricity co, also called MahaTransco, said the state has to file rules and that the reservation for hiring transgender persons would depend on the state government’s position.
The HC had then asked the state to clarify its stand with a “positive affidavit” by the Principal Secretary of the concerned department.
Advocate Kranti had submitted that the examination was scheduled on December 29, 2022 online mode and if the petitioner and other trans persons do not get the reservation, they would be deprived of the job opportunity.
Last December the chief general manager (HR) of the MSETCL had said there was at the time no Constitutional or statutory reservation for transgender persons so its decision to refuse was as per law.
The state will also in a week make an amendment to the Police Recruitment Rules providing physical standards for transgenders for the posts of constables and drivers, Maharashtra advocate general Birendra Saraf said before the HC bench of Acting Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne.
Saraf, in his statement, also said, “Within one week, a committee will be formed to submit a report for Transgender Guidelines and the committee shall submit a report in eight weeks or two months.”
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Vinayak Kashid, filed last year, seeking compliance by the state of a landmark 2014 ruling of the Supreme Court in making and implementing a policy for transpersons in public jobs.
Kashid was seeking a directive to MahaTransco to provide reservations in jobs for the transgender community.
The petitioner had come across an advertisement issued by MahaTransco on May 4 to recruit Assistant Engineers (Transmission) on 170 vacant posts but noted it was in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in the National Legal Services Authority Vs Union of India case, which had recognised several rights for transgender community.
The top court had ordered states to reserve some seats in government jobs for transgender persons.
With no reservations for the trans community and no response from the authorities, the petition was filed before the HC to address the violation of the community’s fundamental rights.
The petition, argued by advocate Kranti LC, was first heard last June by then Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Amjad Sayed.
The HC noted Kashid is aggrieved by non-compliance of the SC directions with regard to reservations for transgenders in the matter of recruitment.
Recruitment for the post of assistant engineers (Transmission) in the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. Was on at the time.
Last December, the HC had directed the state to file an affidavit by January 9, 2023 and from the principal secretary of the social justice department sought to know the state’s stand on the policy for reservation for transgender in Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd (MSETCL).
The state electricity co, also called MahaTransco, said the state has to file rules and that the reservation for hiring transgender persons would depend on the state government’s position.
The HC had then asked the state to clarify its stand with a “positive affidavit” by the Principal Secretary of the concerned department.
Advocate Kranti had submitted that the examination was scheduled on December 29, 2022 online mode and if the petitioner and other trans persons do not get the reservation, they would be deprived of the job opportunity.
Last December the chief general manager (HR) of the MSETCL had said there was at the time no Constitutional or statutory reservation for transgender persons so its decision to refuse was as per law.
