The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a public employer, within the same assessment and placement framework, grants a relaxed qualifying benchmark to one protected class such as SC/ST candidates, and exclusion of persons with disabilities from the same relaxation must satisfy Article 14 and be supported by a rational basis. In the absence of such rational basis, the exclusion is arbitrary and unlawful.
The Court specifically held that Clause 5(G)(ii) of SBI’s Circular dated 23 April 2019 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 to the extent that it excluded PwD candidates from the 5% relaxation granted to SC/ST candidates for direct placement/fitment in MMGS-II upon confirmation. The Court also held that exclusion was not saved by Article 335, the proviso to Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, the Ministry of Finance notification dated 4 March 2002, or SBI’s internal memo dated 20 June 2019.
Accordingly, the Court read down Clause 5(G)(ii), for the 2018 Probationary Officer batch, so as to extend to PwD candidates the same 5% relaxation granted to SC/ST candidates for direct placement/fitment in MMGS-II upon confirmation. Since each petitioner had secured more than 700 marks, SBI was directed to treat them as having satisfied the relaxed eligibility benchmark, grant them notional MMGS-II placement from the due date, refix seniority and pay notionally, and release differential monetary benefits up to the date of actual promotion. The Court also directed SBI to permit them to participate in the next MMGS-III promotion exercise on the basis of the refixed MMGS-II placement, with consequential benefit from promotion year 2024–25 if successful.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that rejected SBI’s preliminary objections on territorial jurisdiction, delay and acquiescence. It held that a material part of the cause of action arose in Delhi because the petitioners were appointed and served in the New Delhi Circle, their confirmation operated in Delhi, and the denial affected their service position there. It also held that the grievance crystallised when the impugned benchmark was applied in January 2021, and that the petitioners had raised representations promptly before approaching the Court.
The Bench accepted that MMGS-II fitment was not a regular promotion exercise, but an incentive-based placement route created by SBI for Probationary Officers who achieved the prescribed standard during the same probation assessment cycle. It therefore held that the case did not concern reservation in promotion under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, but a distinct placement/fitment scheme framed by SBI itself.
The Bench found SBI’s justification unsustainable because SBI had itself chosen to grant a relaxation to SC/ST candidates in the MMGS-II placement process, yet showed no rational basis for denying the same relaxation to PwD candidates. The absence of a government instruction mandating such relaxation for PwD candidates was held not to answer the Article 14 issue once SBI had voluntarily created a relaxation within the same scheme.
The Bench further held that SBI’s reliance on the Ministry of Finance notification dated 4 March 2002 and the internal memo dated 20 June 2019 proceeded on a mistaken premise by conflating reservation with relaxation. The petitioners were directly recruited Probationary Officers already in the officers’ cadre, not clerical employees seeking promotion to officers’ grade, and they were not claiming a reserved promotional vacancy.
The Bench also noted that SBI’s internal record weakened its own case: the internal material had contemplated relaxation/concession for SC/ST/PwD candidates for both confirmation in JMGS-I and direct placement in MMGS-II, and the Law Department had viewed that such concession should continue for both stages; yet the final clause confined MMGS-II relaxation to SC/ST candidates without explanation.
On equality, the Bench observed that disability law under the RPwD Act, 2016 is not confined to entry into service, but extends to fair evaluation, access to progression, and standards that do not exclude persons with disabilities without reason. It reiterated that where a public institution grants relaxation to one protected class, denial of comparable relaxation to persons with disabilities in the same framework must be justified on a rational basis.
Lastly, the Bench held that Article 335 did not apply because the present case did not concern reservation in promotion, but direct placement/fitment under a training and assessment policy. Even otherwise, Article 335 was held to be an enabling provision for SC/ST candidates and not a prohibition against extending a policy-based relaxation to PwD candidates.
Briefly, the petitioners were persons with benchmark disabilities who had been selected by State Bank of India as Probationary Officers in the 2018 batch against PwD-reserved vacancies. After two years’ probation and continuous assessment, they were confirmed in JMGS-I. Their grievance was not about entry into service, and not properly a claim for reservation in promotion, but about denial of relaxation in the benchmark for direct placement/fitment in MMGS-II under the same assessment policy.
SBI’s Circular No. CDO/STU-TRAINING/3/2019-20 dated 23 April 2019 used the same 1000-mark continuous assessment for two consequences: confirmation in JMGS-I and direct placement/fitment in MMGS-II. For confirmation, the minimum was 50%, relaxed to 45% for SC/ST and PwD candidates. For direct placement in MMGS-II, the minimum was 75%, relaxed only to 70% for SC/ST candidates; PwD candidates were not given the same relaxation.
All four petitioners had scored above 700 but below 750 marks out of 1000. Therefore, if the same 5% relaxation given to SC/ST candidates had been extended to PwD candidates, each petitioner would have crossed the eligibility threshold for consideration for MMGS-II placement. Rule 16(1) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, and Clause 7 of the recruitment advertisement treated the process as “placement (fitment)” in MMGS-II upon confirmation, based on merit and suitability through a screening process, and not as an ordinary later promotion cycle.
Appearances:
Advocates Rizwan and Sachi Chopra, for the Petitioners
Advocates Ajit Kumar Pathak and Akriti Pathak, for the Respondents
