Delhi High Court Directs SBI To Review Confirmation Test For PwD Officers; Says “Recommendations Of CCPwD have to be Generally Followed” But May Be Declined For Valid Reasons
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that recommendations issued by the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) are generally to be followed by government authorities, though they may be declined for valid and recorded reasons. The Court, while dismissing a petition challenging Rule 16 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules and the termination of a visually impaired probationary officer, directed the Bank to reconsider whether further relaxation or reasonable accommodation could be provided to persons with disabilities in the confirmation test. It instructed that any such decision be made within four weeks, in line with the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and communicated to the petitioner accordingly.
The petitioner, a probationary officer with 100% visual disability, approached the Court challenging his termination by the State Bank of India (SBI) and seeking a declaration that Rule 16 of the SBI Officers Service Rules, 1992, was unconstitutional. He had been appointed under the category reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities in one of the Associate Banks of SBI, which later merged with SBI. Upon merger, his services were continued, but he failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in two attempts at the mandatory confirmation test, leading to his termination.
The petitioner contended that the confirmation process and Rule 16 were arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. He asserted that the bank had failed to provide reasonable accommodation as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and ignored the order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD), which recommended his reinstatement and re-examination.
The respondents argued that the petitioner was bound by the terms of employment, having accepted them upon joining. They maintained that sufficient relaxation and assistance, including lower qualifying marks and permission to use a scribe, had already been provided, and that the CCPwD’s recommendations were advisory, not binding.
The Court recorded that “Regulation 16.1 of the SBBJ Regulations, 1979 provides that the officer shall be confirmed if in the opinion of the competent authority the officer has satisfactorily completed the training.” It observed that this permitted the bank to conduct a confirmation test to assess such completion. The Bench stated that “the Appointment Letter clearly warns the candidates, including the petitioner, that his confirmation would be subject to the passing of the confirmation test.”
The Court observed that “once the merger of the associate banks into the SBI took place, the petitioner became an employee of the SBI, and therefore, the service conditions of the SBI became applicable to him, including the requirement of passing the confirmation test.” It recorded that “the petitioner having participated in the confirmation tests without protest is estopped from challenging the same.”
On the issue of reservation and accommodation, the Court noted that “once the petitioner has been appointed to the post reserved for the PwBDs, the petitioner would have to clear the confirmation test in the same manner as other officers. The RPwD Act does not provide for further reservation at the stage of confirmation.”
At the same time, the Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, observing that “the RPwD Act requires a relaxed standard to be adopted as far as the PwDs or PwBDs are concerned.” The Bench stated that “the RPwD Act mandates that necessary and appropriate relaxations and adjustments, without imposing disproportionate or undue burden, should be made to ensure that the PwD enjoys or exercises rights at par with others.”
The Court also recorded that “if sufficient number of PwBD candidates are not available under the relaxed standard, further relaxation in assessing the suitability of candidates can be considered, in line with the Office Memorandums dated 15.01.2018 and 17.05.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training.”
Regarding the scope of the Chief Commissioner’s authority, the Bench observed that “the recommendations of the CCPwD have to be generally followed, however, the concerned authority may, for valid reasons, refuse to follow the same, and in such circumstance, convey the reason of non-acceptance to the CCPwD and also to the aggrieved person.”
The Court directed: “We call upon the respondents to consider if further relaxation can be given in the confirmation test for purposes of accommodating the petitioner and other PwD candidates or further and reasonable accommodation can be given to such candidates in the manner or mode of the confirmation test so as to ensure that the mandate of RPwD Act is not defeated and adequate representation of PwD persons is maintained in the services.
Such decision must be taken by the respondents within a period of four weeks from today and informed to the petitioner. In case the respondents refuse to recommend such further relaxation or accommodation, the reasons for the same shall also be supplied to the petitioner. In case it is decided to further relax the standards and/or give further reasonable accommodation to the candidates in the manner or mode of the examination, the same benefit shall be extended to the petitioner by giving him another chance to participate in the screening test on basis thereof. With the above directions, the writ petition along with all pending applications is disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Praful Shukla and Mr. Vipin Shukla, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Mr. Jatin Puniyani, Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, Ms. Ruchita Srivastava, and Ms. Amisha P. Dash, Advocates, Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Standing Counsel with Mr. Akshit Kapur, AOR, Ms. Riya Sood, Mr. Shobit Mehrotra, and Mr. Sachin Kumar Gupta, for SBI
Case Title: Munna Lal Yadav v. Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 9519 - DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7197/2021 & CM APPL. 22694/2021
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla; Justice Madhu Jain
