Gender-Wise Hiring? SC Questions Delhi Govt on Teacher Recruitment
The Supreme Court asks the Delhi government to justify separate teacher vacancies for men and women and explain the inclusion of transgender candidates.
The Supreme Court of India has stepped in to question the Delhi government's current method of hiring teachers, specifically focusing on why the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issues separate vacancy notifications for male and female candidates. Beyond the binary, the apex court has raised a critical question: where do transgender persons fit into the public employment framework?
The Core of the Legal Challenge
The matter came to light through petitions filed by Jane Kaushik and Praveen Singh. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran noted that the primary issue is the "non-inclusion of third gender" in the vacancy notifications issued by the State.
In an order dated October 16, the court framed six specific questions for the Delhi government, demanding a detailed explanation via affidavits within 15 days. The court is seeking clarity on several key points:
- What are the specific recruitment rules that govern the notifications issued by the DSSSB?
- Is there any statute, service rule, or constitutional provision that mandates teaching vacancies be advertised separately based on gender?
- If no such legal requirement exists, what is the logical rationale behind this gender-based classification?
Addressing Transgender Inclusion
The Supreme Court is not only questioning the separation of male and female quotas but is actively pushing for the inclusion of the transgender community in public service. The bench has asked the government to clarify if they intend to include transgender candidates in future DSSSB notifications and, more importantly, how they plan to facilitate their entry into public employment.
The Debate Over Age Relaxation
One of the petitions, filed by Praveen Singh, specifically touched upon the issue of age relaxation for transgender candidates. The Supreme Court questioned a previous decision by the Delhi High Court, asking why the High Court had not utilized its powers under Rule 12 of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972.
The apex court highlighted that such powers could have been used to grant relaxations, considering the severe "socio-economic discrimination" that the transgender community consistently faces.
Previous Observations and Next Steps
This scrutiny follows an observation made by the Supreme Court in April, where it pointed out that an advisory committee set up to examine systemic issues regarding transgender rights lacked "adjudicatory powers." The court had previously questioned the Delhi High Court's direction to Jane Kaushik to approach this committee rather than having her petition decided judicially.
The Delhi government must now justify its recruitment policies as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case again on November 19.