The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has ruled that it cannot provide reservation for transgender persons in public employment. However, it has directed the state to grant relaxations in terms of age and qualifying marks to three transgender applicants. The applicants had sought separate reservation based on a Supreme Court verdict that recognized transgender persons as socially and economically backward. The state opposed the reservation, citing existing reservation limits and potential abuse.
MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on Wednesday held that it cannot entertain pleas for reservation to transgender persons in public employment. The tribunal has, however, directed the state to grant relaxations in terms of age and qualifying marks to three such applicants who have approached it.
The bench of MAT chairperson, justice Mridula Bhatkar and member Medha Gadgil has directed the state government to grant, if required, grace marks and age relaxation to the three candidates, two of whom participated in the police recruitment drive while the third has applied for the post of talathi.
The three applicants, Arya Pujari, Vinayak Kashid, and Yashwant Bhise, had approached the Tribunal, through advocate Kranti LC, seeking separate reservation for transgender persons in government employments in the state. Pujari and Kashid had applied for the posts of police constables, whereas Bhise has applied for the post of talathi.
They said the Maharashtra government has recognized transgender applicants subsequent to the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. However, there are no provisions for reservation for the community in state employment. They had sought reservation based on the Supreme Court’s verdict in the NALSA case in which the apex court had held that transgender persons should be treated as socially and economically backward and hence given reservation.
Advocate Kranti LC had also pointed out that other states like Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, and Bihar had given the benefit of reservations to transgender people. Out of the five states, four have given reservations for transgenders in SEBC, he submitted.
The counsel for the state, however, vehemently opposed any such reservation. Chief presenting officer for the state Swati Manchekar said that since there was no provision for reservation in the 2019 Act itself, such a relief cannot be granted. Moreover, the reservation in Maharashtra already exceeded the limits stipulated by the apex court and the state already had a vertical reservation of 62% and horizontal reservation of 72%, she pointed out. She also pointed out the possible abuse of reservations once allowed.
After considering both arguments, the court refused to grant the plea for separate reservations under the SEBC category. However, it acknowledged the need to provide adequate opportunities available to transgender persons for effective participation and meaningful inclusion of transgenders in the mainstream.
