The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi government to explain why teaching vacancies advertised by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) are divided between male and female candidates and how transgender applicants will be accommodated in public employment.

In an order dated October 16, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran framed questions for the Delhi government in petitions filed by Jane Kaushik and Praveen Singh. The government has been directed to submit affidavits within 15 days, explaining the rules governing recruitment notifications and the legal basis, if any, for classifying teaching vacancies by gender.

The case raises a wider question about equality in public employment: can a recruitment process meaningfully include transgender applicants if the vacancy notification itself recognises only male and female categories?

The court has not yet delivered a final ruling on the issues. It has sought the government’s explanation before considering the matter further. The petitions are scheduled to be heard on November 19.

Why has the Supreme Court questioned gender-based recruitment?

The court wants the Delhi government to identify the recruitment rules governing DSSSB vacancy notifications and explain whether any constitutional provision, legislation or service rule requires teaching posts to be advertised separately for men and women.

If no such requirement exists, the government must explain the rationale behind dividing vacancies by gender. The bench has also asked whether the authorities intend to include transgender candidates in recruitment notifications and, if so, how their inclusion in public employment would be facilitated.

These questions go beyond the wording of an application form. They concern the rules through which candidates are identified, considered and ultimately appointed to government jobs.

For transgender applicants, the distinction matters because being able to register under a transgender category does not necessarily resolve every difficulty in a recruitment process that continues to divide vacancies into male and female posts.

The petitions seek answers on how such candidates can access teaching opportunities and whether additional measures, including changes to recruitment policies and age-related requirements, are necessary.

Jane Kaushik’s fight to access government teaching jobs

Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman, has been pursuing access to teaching positions in Delhi government schools through the courts for several years.

Her earlier proceedings raised concerns about recruitment notifications that divided teaching posts by gender and an application system that did not initially provide a workable route for transgender candidates to apply.

In January 2023, the Delhi High Court recorded that the DSSSB’s online application system had been updated to identify male, female and transgender categories. However, the wider problem of how transgender candidates would be considered for posts advertised specifically for male or female applicants remained part of the dispute.

Kaushik subsequently sought, among other reliefs, separate vacancy notifications for transgender persons, relaxation in minimum qualifications and age requirements, and a recruitment policy covering appointments across Delhi government departments.

In April 2026, the Supreme Court permitted her to apply under the transgender category for teaching vacancies regardless of the gender mentioned in the notification. The court also questioned the Delhi High Court’s decision to direct her towards an advisory committee, observing that the committee did not possess adjudicatory powers.

The latest proceedings indicate that the issue has not ended with permission to submit an application. The court is now seeking clarity on the recruitment framework itself and how transgender applicants would be accommodated when appointments are made.

Praveen Singh’s petition raises the question of age relaxation

The connected petition filed by Praveen Singh brings another barrier into focus: whether transgender candidates should receive age relaxation in view of the socio-economic discrimination they face.

The Supreme Court questioned why the Delhi High Court had not considered exercising its powers under Rule 12 of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, to grant such relaxation.

Age limits can have a significant effect on access to public employment. Where people have faced exclusion from education, training or formal work, they may reach the stage of applying for government positions later than other candidates.

The court has asked the respondents to address the question raised in Singh’s petition. It has not, at this stage, granted a general age-relaxation benefit to transgender applicants.

The issue is therefore whether the existing framework adequately accounts for the barriers faced by transgender candidates, and what legal or administrative measures may be available to address them.

What does Indian law say about discrimination in employment?

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, prohibits discrimination against transgender persons in employment and occupation. Section 9 specifically addresses non-discrimination in employment, while Section 10 sets out obligations for establishments.

The law is relevant to the dispute because recruitment is a gateway to employment. The questions before the Supreme Court concern how the legal protection against discrimination operates when government vacancies are advertised and applicants are assessed under gender-specific categories.

The case also draws attention to the difference between formal recognition and practical access. An online portal may allow a person to select a transgender category, but recruitment rules and vacancy notifications must still provide a workable route through the selection process.

The court’s questions do not establish that every gender-based classification in recruitment is unlawful. Instead, they require the government to identify the applicable rules and explain the legal basis and purpose of the classifications used in these particular notifications.

Why the case matters beyond Delhi

The outcome could have implications for how public recruitment systems address transgender applicants, particularly where vacancy notices, eligibility rules and application procedures are built around male and female categories.

For a person seeking a government teaching job, inclusion involves more than the ability to fill out a form. Applicants must be able to identify suitable vacancies, meet the stated eligibility requirements, compete through a clear selection process and be considered for appointment under rules that recognise their eligibility.

The case also raises questions about whether recruitment authorities need clearer policies on gender-inclusive advertising, application categories and reasonable accommodation. These are issues for the government and the court to address through the legal process, rather than assumptions that can be settled by the wording of a vacancy notice alone.

The Supreme Court has already constituted an advisory committee chaired by former judge Justice Asha Menon to examine broader issues concerning transgender rights, including an equal-opportunity policy and protections in employment and education. The committee’s policy work forms part of the wider context, but the court has emphasised that an advisory body cannot replace adjudication of an individual’s legal claim.

What happens next?

The Delhi government and other respondents must submit their affidavits in response to the Supreme Court’s questions. The petitioners will have an opportunity to respond, and the matter is listed for November 19.

The court’s next steps will depend on the explanations and legal positions placed before it. Until then, the questions of how teaching vacancies should be classified, how transgender candidates should be accommodated and whether age relaxation is warranted remain under consideration.

For transgender applicants seeking public employment, the central issue is whether recognition on paper translates into a fair opportunity to compete for a job. The proceedings could help clarify what the law requires of recruitment authorities when their existing procedures are challenged as excluding people they are meant to serve.