In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Visually Impaired Bank Employees Welfare Association to challenge the promotion policy of the State Bank of India (SBI) for the post of Senior Management Grade Scale (SMGS) – IV and V, which mandated prior experience as a branch manager or in assignments related to credit/finance and foreign exchange, a Division Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to SBI and directed SBI to consider the suggestions and implement them to the extent feasible.
The petitioner association, representing over 600 visually disabled banking professionals, contended that these specific mandates structurally exclude visually impaired employees from promotional avenues, amounting to direct and indirect discrimination under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) as the prior experience roles mentioned in the policy were inherently inaccessible to visually impaired officers due to absence of assistive technology and the visual nature of the tasks.
It was argued that core managerial duties such as visual signature verification, physical document handling, checking physical collateral, evaluating borrower units, and monitoring CCTV cameras were fundamentally inaccessible to visually challenged individuals. The petitioners contended that requiring blind managers to assume absolute legal and financial liability by signing regulatory compliance documents, such as the “Branch Manager Monthly Certificate” solely based on an assistant’s oral inputs, exposes them to high operational and personal risks. The petitioners were also against the awarding of 5 marks in the final promotion merit list for two years of branch experience.
The petitioner emphasized that screen readers and OCR technologies were insufficient for physical records and signature authentications. Certain instances were also cited where other public sector banks were shown to have successfully accommodated visually impaired managers and it was further pointed out that SBI’s own internal rules did not list Branch Manager or Credit Officer posts as suitable profiles for the visually impaired. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) against the discriminatory effect of the impugned policy.
CCPD noted that the requirements in the promotion process effectively excluded visually impaired employees and recommended a modification of the impugned policy to provide reasonable accommodation as well as an equal opportunity for visually impaired employees. It was also suggested that equivalent weightage be given for functions capable of being performed independently without undue risk, and that the overall promotion policy be reviewed to eliminate exclusionary provisions.
The Court noted that SBI had failed to comply with CCPD’s recommendations and that the impugned policy mentioned that to be considered for being promoted to SMGS-IV, an officer must have completed two years’ service as a branch manager in Scale-II/III incumbency branch(es) or two years’ service in an assignment relating to credit, trade finance, or forex in MMGS-II/III grades. It was also noted that for promotion from SMGS-IV to SMGS-V, the officer must have a minimum of four years’ branch experience in any vertical of which at least two years must have been served as a branch manager in Scale-III/IV incumbency branch(es) in the R&DB vertical.
The Court stated that “persons with disabilities are entitled to live and work with equal dignity, and that discrimination against them, including in matters of promotion, is impermissible.” It was found necessary to ensure that SBI officers with visual disabilities were treated equally and provided with such support and facilities as may be necessary to offset the impact of their disability. The Court held that any provision that created an impediment to the promotion of visually impaired officers would run contrary to the provisions of the RPwD Act as well as the law by the Supreme Court.
The Court decided to entertain the petition as a Public Interest Litigation, noting that despite minor maintainability issues, it raised significant, systemic questions. It was noted that neither the petitioner had not identified the specific employees stated to have been impacted by the impugned policy nor had it provided details of exact hardships being faced by them. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not provided workable alternative frameworks.
The Court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to SBI with identification of the officers who had been adversely affected by the impugned policy and with concrete suggestions to enable such officers to comply with the impugned policy within four weeks. The representation was also directed to include the measures utilized by other public sector banks as well as the recommendations by CCPD.
Further, the Court directed that upon receiving the representation, SBI’s Board of Directors was mandated to provide the petitioner’s authorized representative a formal hearing and evaluate the suggested policy modifications. SBI was directed to implement feasible changes and communicate its finalized compliance actions to the petitioner within twelve weeks of receiving the representation.
