Teaching vacancies in Delhi are advertised as male or female, and a transgender candidate wants to know why. The Supreme Court has asked the Delhi Government and the DSSSB to say on affidavit whether any rule requires a gender-based notification of Delhi teaching posts.
New Delhi: Two petitions against gender-binary recruitment notifications have prompted the Supreme Court to ask the Delhi Government and the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to explain on affidavit why teaching vacancies are notified separately for male and female candidates, and how transgender persons will be accommodated in public employment [Jane Kaushik v. Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi and Others].
Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the order of October 16, 2026. The respondents have 15 days to respond, the petitioners may reply thereafter, and both matters are listed on November 19, 2026. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents.
How the petitions reached the Court
Jane Kaushik, a transgender woman, had earlier approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in a separate petition, Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, which ended with directions on transgender rights, among them an Advisory Committee chaired by Justice (Retd.) Asha Menon to examine equal opportunity policy. Her later writ petition in the Delhi High Court sought a recruitment policy for transgender persons in Delhi Government posts, separate teaching vacancies, and relaxation of age and minimum qualifications. The High Court disposed of it on December 18, 2025, leaving her at liberty to approach the Advisory Committee.
Her special leave petition drew notice on April 10, 2026 from a Bench of Justices Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan, which recorded a prima facie view that the High Court erred in sending her to a Committee without adjudicatory powers, and allowed her to apply under the transgender category for teaching vacancies whatever gender the notification stated. The notifications themselves remained gender-binary, and the matter came back to the Court. A connected petition by Praveen Singh raises the question of age relaxation.
The questions put to the respondents
The Bench opened by saying that certain inquiries were necessary. Which Recruitment Rules govern vacancy notifications of this kind, it asked, and where does the Board get its power to notify vacancies for teaching roles in specific subjects: a constitutional provision, a statute or State service rules? Then came the question on gender:
“Whether the aforesaid Recruitment rules, or statutory enactment, or State Service Rules require that vacancies in respect of teaching roles be notified on the basis of gender?”
If the answer is no, the respondents must explain what the division of vacancies between male and female candidates rests on, and the objective behind it; if yes, they must justify using gender as the basis for notifying vacancies in public recruitment. On the core grievance of the transgender petitioners, the Bench asked:
“In both the petitions, do the respondents propose to include third gender in vacancy notifications issued by them through DSSSB? In other words, in what manner transgender persons would be accommodated in public employment?”
In Praveen Singh’s petition the Court also asked why the High Court did not rely on Rule 12 of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 to give transgender persons age relaxation, given the socio-economic discrimination they face.
The law in the background
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 prohibits discrimination against transgender persons in employment, and Section 9 bars establishments from discriminating in recruitment and promotion. In NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court recognised the third gender and directed that transgender persons be treated as a socially and educationally backward class for public appointments. The present petitions ask how those principles operate where a recruiting body publishes vacancies only under male and female heads.
What the order does and does not do
The order decides nothing on the merits. It puts a direct question to the recruiting authority: does any rule really require teaching posts to be advertised by gender, and, if not, what is the objective of the split? The affidavits should show whether the male-female format rests on law or on administrative practice.
Case Title: Jane Kaushik v. Lieutenant Governor, NCT of Delhi and Others [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12480 of 2026, with a connected matter]
Bench: Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Date of Order: October 16, 2026; next listing November 19, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Naman Jain, Wajeeh Shafiq (AOR), Shagufta Ansari and Manish Tiwari; Amritananda Chakravorty, Shreya Munoth (AOR), Asawari Sodhi and Tavleen Kaur Saluja for the petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with Swati Ghildiyal (AOR), Adarsh Dubey and Sonakshi Sinha for the respondents