The Supreme Court on 20 October 2026 issued notice to the Delhi government, seeking its formal response on the non-inclusion of transgender persons in recruitment notifications for teaching posts advertised by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). The bench raised pointed questions about the legal basis for restricting vacancies to male and female categories — and what recourse exists for members of the third gender seeking public employment.

Key Directions from the Bench

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed all respondents to file affidavits within 15 days. The Justice Pardiwala-led bench specifically questioned whether existing recruitment rules mandate advertising teaching posts separately for male and female candidates and, if not, what objective such a classification serves. It further asked whether authorities propose to include the third gender in future DSSSB notifications and how transgender persons could practically be accommodated in public employment.

Background: The Petitions Before the Court

The proceedings arise from two connected matters. The first is a petition filed by Praveen Singh, concerning transgender persons' access to public employment and age relaxation. The second stems from a petition by Jane Kaushik, who had challenged a 18 December 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court. Kaushik had sought separate vacancies for transgender persons in teaching roles, relaxation of minimum qualifications and age requirements, and a dedicated recruitment policy for transgender persons in government appointments.

In an earlier order, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had prima facie erred in disposing of Kaushik's petition by directing her to approach an advisory committee — a body that, the apex court noted, does not possess adjudicatory powers. The court had also allowed Kaushik to apply under the transgender category for any DSSSB vacancy irrespective of the gender specified in the advertisement, continuing relief that the Delhi High Court had previously granted during the pendency of her writ petition.

The Core Concern: Exclusion at Appointment Stage

Kaushik had argued that despite being registered on the DSSSB's Online Application Registration System (OARS) portal, she risked exclusion at the appointment stage because recruitment advertisements specify either male or female candidates. The structural gap — registration permitted but appointment blocked — was central to the apex court's concern. This is not merely a procedural lacuna; it effectively renders the registration window meaningless for transgender applicants.

Broader Legal Framework

The Supreme Court noted that several issues raised in these petitions had been addressed in its earlier judgment in Jane Kaushik v. Union of India, which dealt with the implementation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and rules framed under it. Separately, the apex court had constituted an advisory committee chaired by former Justice Asha Menon to examine a range of issues including an equal opportunity policy, reasonable accommodation, grievance redressal mechanisms, gender and name change procedures, inclusive medical care, and safeguards for gender-diverse persons. Notably, this committee's advisory role is distinct from the adjudicatory function the High Court had appeared to conflate.

What Happens Next

With affidavits due within 15 days, the Delhi government and DSSSB must now place on record their legal position on third-gender inclusion. The court's questions signal that a status quo of binary-only recruitment notifications may face direct judicial scrutiny. The outcome could have implications not just for Delhi's teaching cadre but for transgender persons seeking public employment across state governments that rely on similar selection-board frameworks.