The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has directed that the State Government to undertake a comprehensive and in-depth study through a Committee comprising senior functionaries, preferably headed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Empowerment, along with eminent social activists and representatives of the transgender community, to assess the extent of compounded marginalization suffered by transgender persons belonging to SC/ST/SEBC/OBC/Open categories vis-a-vis others.
The Court also directed the Committee to formulate and recommend appropriate measures or a workable framework to ameliorate this aggravated disadvantage, with a view to enabling such individuals to achieve substantive equality in access to public employment and educational opportunities. Upon submission of the Committee’s recommendations, the State Government shall take an informed and appropriate policy decision for providing reservation as per the statutory mandate contained under Section 8 of the Act read with the NALSA judgment.
Pending such decision, and to address the immediate inequity, the Court directed that transgender persons shall henceforth be granted 3% additional weightage in the maximum prescribed marks for purposes of selection and appointment on the posts and admission to educational institutions under the State Government, its instrumentalities, public sector undertakings, and State-funded or aided institutions.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit observed that under Section 8 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the appropriate government is legally mandated to ensure the full and effective participation of transgender individuals in society, implement welfare measures to safeguard their rights, and develop transgender-sensitive, non-stigmatizing, and non-discriminatory schemes. The NALSA judgment directed the Centre and State Governments to treat transgenders as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation.
However, the Bench noted that based on the 2011 Census, the transgender population constitutes an exceedingly small, minuscule fraction of the total population (0.024%) and of the OBC segment (0.046%). The Bench observed that in a regime of horizontal reservations, proportionality is foundational, and if a separate horizontal reservation were to be carved out given this extremely low proportion, its operational impact would be virtually illusory. Reserved roster points for transgender candidates would arise only at long and irregular intervals, causing systemic frustration, and the implementation would entail significant administrative and logistical complications under the rota-quota system.
The Bench highlighted a serious anomaly arising from the impugned notification: prior to its issuance, a transgender person born into an SC/ST/SEBC family was entitled to reservation benefits by virtue of birth in that category, which may be more advantageous than placement within the OBC category. By bringing all transgender persons within Entry No. 92 of the OBC category, the notification effectively subsumes and extinguishes their pre-existing reservation entitlements without affording them an option to choose, resulting in a manifestly anomalous and adverse consequence where individuals lose more beneficial protections.
Even if an option to choose were assumed, the impugned notification confers no tangible additional benefit upon them, merely compelling a choice between two regimes without enhancing substantive entitlements, added the Bench, while holding that the impugned circular is a mere facade and an eyewash, an exercise in form without substance that confers no real reservation whatsoever and simply parrots what already stands declared by the Supreme Court in NALSA. The State of Rajasthan conspicuously abdicated its clear constitutional obligation to translate the mandate of the Supreme Court into tangible policy by carving out a distinct and effective reservation framework.
The Bench also observed while dismissing the contempt petition on August 18, 2023, it did not undertake any discussion or finding regarding whether the impugned notification was in true compliance with the Supreme Court judgment in NALSA, and adjudication of the impugned notification was neither the prayer nor within the scope of the contempt jurisdiction.
Regarding the pendency of the Supreme Court case (Kiran A.R.), the Bench noted that the Supreme Court is addressing the legality of admissions in medical colleges and whether transgender individuals should be granted 1% horizontal reservation in that specific context, whereas the primary concern in the present petition is the alignment of the State Government notification dated January 12, 2023, with the NALSA judgment, which is not the subject matter of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.
Lastly, the Bench noted the passing of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which proposes to omit the right to self-perceived gender identity, cautioning the State that any policy framework evolved must strive to preserve, to the fullest extent possible, the principle of self-identification within the contours of the amended law, ensuring that statutory developments do not dilute constitutional guarantees.
Briefly, the petitioner, a transgender individual, filed a petition in the nature of certiorari to quash a notification dated January 12, 2023, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, whereby transgenders were declared as Other Backward Classes (OBC) at serial number 92 without providing any reservation as a separate category. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondent to provide horizontal reservations in the public services of the State Government for the transgender community as per the mandate of the Supreme Court judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA).
Previously, the petitioner had filed a writ seeking 1 percent horizontal reservation under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which was disposed of on February 14, 2022, directing the State to work out reservation in such manner and to such extent as it may decide. The petitioner subsequently filed a contempt petition to enforce the said order, during the pendency of which the State issued the impugned notification dated January 12, 2023. The contempt petition was however dismissed on August 18, 2023, as the Court observed that in light of the issuance of the impugned notification, no contempt was made out. The petitioner then filed writ impugning the notification, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition providing better particulars regarding the population of transgenders and the extent of reservation provided to OBCs.
The respondents contested the petition, stating that transgender individuals have already been classified under the OBC/SEBC category as per the NALSA declaration, entitling them to vertical reservations in employment and education. The respondents argued that matters related to the structure of reservations, whether vertical or horizontal, are exclusively within the legislative and executive domains, and judicial intervention is limited to evaluating policies against constitutional principles, not re-framing policies or creating a new reservation class. The respondents further objected that a similar issue seeking 1% horizontal reservation for transgender candidates across all vertical categories in NEET-PG admission is pending before the Supreme Court in Kiran A.R. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition Civil No. 461/2025). Pursuant to the Court’s order dated November 20, 2025, the respondents filed an additional affidavit admitting that since the issuance of the impugned circular/notification dated January 12, 2023, no transgender individual has been benefited by it.
Appearances:
Advocates Vivek Mathur, Prakash Kumar Balout, and Dhirendra Singh Sodha, for the Petitioner
AAGs B.L. Bhati and Praveen Khandelwal, along with Advocates Piyush Bhandari, Mahesh Thanvi, Pragya Thanvi, and Deepak Chandak, for the Respondent
