The Maharashtra government recently informed the Bombay High Court that it is currently difficult to provide additional reservations (both horizontal and vertical) for transgender individuals in educational and employment sectors.
According to Dr. Birendra Saraf, the Advocate General of Maharashtra, introducing supplementary reservations for transgender individuals appeared to be a challenging task at present.
Saraf stated “Considering the extent of vertical and horizontal reservations which are already provided, providing additional reservations for transgender persons seems difficult”. He further noted that the Central government has not yet established any guidelines or regulations to implement the Supreme Court judgment in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.
These arguments were presented in response to a petition filed by Vinayak Kashid, who sought a court order directing the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (MahaTransco) to provide job reservations for transgender individuals.
Advocate Kranti LC, representing Kashid, informed the Court that in Karnataka, a reservation of 1% has been implemented across all caste categories. The lawyer requested that Maharashtra adopt a similar reservation policy.
In a previous case in December 2022, the Court had directed the State government to formulate rules that would enable transgender individuals to obtain government employment, in accordance with the 2020 guidelines issued by the Central government.
The Central Rules of 2020 were issued to enforce the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act of 2019.
The Rules outline a process for the identification of transgender individuals for employment purposes. Additionally, the Rules require each state to develop its own policies to facilitate the implementation of the Act within a two-year timeframe.
Furthermore, the State of Maharashtra recently issued a government resolution (GR) on March 3, 2023, regarding the recruitment of transgender individuals in employment and education sectors.
The GR also stated that a committee had been established under the Social Justice Department, comprising 14 members, including secretaries from different State departments and psychologists.
During the current hearing, the State government proposed that the petitioners could present their case before this expert committee regarding the reservation for transgender individuals.
Taking this suggestion into account, the Court decided to adjourn the case to allow the expert committee to examine the matter of reservation for transgender individuals.
