The Kerala High Court in the case Kerala Public Service Commission v. Aneera C. & Ors observed and has refused to interfere with the interim order issued by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal wherein it permitted the trans-woman applicant to submit her application for the post of House Keeper (Female) that had been notified by the Kerala Public Services Commission, the Kerala PSC.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran in the case observed and is of the view that the impugned order was only an ad interim interlocutory order, that was intended to ‘preserve the subject matter of the lis’.
In the present case, the original applicant, who being the trans-woman, wanted to apply for the post of House Keeper (Female) in the Homeopathic Medical College. Thus, she was aggrieved that both the selection notification as well as the rules of recruitment had prescribed that appointment to the said post would be confined only to women candidates. It has also been submitted by the applicant that the PSC had devised a software accepting applications only from women candidates and that it has been claimed by the original applicant that since she could legally claim only to be a trans-woman and her online application was not being accepted by the software system of the PSC.
Further, it has been contended by the applicant before the Tribunal that by virtue of Section 3(b) of the Transgender Persons Act, 2019 i.e., the ‘TGP Act, 2019’. Thus, it has also been stipulated that there shall not be any unfair treatment in or in relation to, employment or occupation.
The court observed that when the applicant approached the Tribunal in this regard, the court passed an interim order wherein the court directed the PSC that the applicant may submit her application in physical form, which would thereafter be accepted by the PSC for the time being.
Further, it is being aggrieved by the said interim order that the PSC filed the present petition before the High Court.
However, the Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC P.C. Sasidharan contended before the court that the differentiation on basis of gender was made since one of the prime duties to be discharged by the incumbent in the post was to take care of the safety and the other needs of the women who stay in the hostel of women. Adding to it, it has also been submitted that the incumbent would also have to be prepared for night stay in the women’s hostel concerned, and that there would be serious safety issued if the concerned incumbent is not a woman.
Adding to it, the court stated that the Tribunal ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the PSC to file their written response, and heard both sides and assessed the prima facie nature of the case and the balance of convenience.
Accordingly, the court directed the Tribunal to facilitate early hearing and dispose of the main matter within the period of 3 months.
The counsels, Senior Government Pleader Unnikrishna Kaimal, and Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate Thulasi K. Raj, and Advocate Aparna Narayan Menon appeared on behalf of the respondents.