The Delhi High Court upholds that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 does not mandate reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) at the stage of confirmation tests; however, it requires relaxed standards and reasonable accommodation for PwBDs. The precedent is binding within Delhi and provides a framework for how recommendations by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) should be treated by public authorities.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | W.P.(C)/7197/2021 of MUNNA LAL YADAV Vs DEPARTMENT OF EMPOWERMENT OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES & ORS. |
| CNR | DLHC010224342021 |
| Date of Registration | 28-07-2021 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed of with directions |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority in NCT of Delhi; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Constitutional law; Employment law; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the RPwD Act requires reasonable accommodation and relaxed standards for PwBDs but does not mandate reservation at the confirmation test stage after initial recruitment. The standards may be further relaxed if adequate PwBD candidates are not available post-selection, provided organizational efficiency is not compromised. Separate cut-offs and reasonable accommodations (such as scribes, extra time) are required for PwBDs at all stages of public employment, but further reservation at confirmation is not mandated. CCPwD recommendations are not binding if public authority gives reasoned refusal as per Section 76, RPwD Act; such authorities must give reasons in writing to both CCPwD and aggrieved persons. The court directed authorities to reconsider further relaxation/accommodation and to inform/implement accordingly. The petition failed on merits but directions were issued for reconsideration under relaxed standards. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner, a 100% visually impaired OBC candidate, was appointed as Probationary Officer by SBBJ, later merged into SBI. Appointment was reserved for PwBD and required confirmation through a test; petitioner failed twice, despite relaxed cut-off and accommodations. Terminated from service, petitioner’s challenge included claims for reservation at confirmation stage and dispute over the binding nature of recommendations from the CCPwD. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the NCT of Delhi |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Tribunals, and potential Supreme Court review |
| Follows |
|
| Distinguishes | National Federation of the Blind v. UOI, Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. UOI — clarifies no reservation at confirmation stage, only at initial recruitment |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- RPwD Act, 2016 does not mandate reservation for PwBDs at the stage of confirmation tests, only at the time of initial recruitment.
- Relaxed standards in confirmation tests are required for PwBDs (e.g., lower qualifying marks, extra time, scribe facilities).
- Public authorities must consider further relaxation if sufficient PwBDs fail confirmation, subject to basic job requirements and service efficiency.
- Recommendations by the CCPwD are not binding; public authorities may refuse with written, reasoned decisions to both CCPwD and the aggrieved person.
- No bar on seeking further reasonable accommodations in the mode/manner of confirmation tests, to ensure substantive equality.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment as binding authority in Delhi to resist claims for reservation at confirmation (internal employment) stage but can argue for further reasonable accommodation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the relevant SBBJ and SBI rules, holding that the confirmation test was valid and binding post-merger, and the petitioner had expressly accepted the terms.
- Analyzed Sections 3, 20, and 34 of the RPwD Act, and held that while the Act provides strong equality and anti-discrimination guarantees, its reservation provisions operate only at the stage of initial recruitment — not confirmation.
- Relied on Supreme Court judgment in Suman Mandal v. SBI (2025) holding that reservation and relaxation in selection process cannot be claimed at any later stage like confirmation.
- Cited Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025 INSC 300) for the principle of reasonable accommodation, relaxed standards, need for separate cut-offs, and the applicability of indirect discrimination doctrine.
- Affirmed that horizontal reservation and relaxations for PwBDs are permissible but must align with organizational efficiency and cannot override basic suitability for the role.
- Referred to Office Memorandums (DoPT) and mechanism for further relaxation if suitable PwBDs fall short in confirmation, emphasizing substantive equality.
- On the binding nature of CCPwD recommendations, the court interpreted Sections 75-76 of RPwD Act, following Mukesh Kumar v. National Power Training Institute (DHC), to clarify that authorities may reject with reasons to both CCPwD and the affected individual.
- Directed SBI to reconsider possibility of further relaxation/accommodation in confirmation tests and to inform the petitioner of its final decision along with reasons.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Appointment letter and regulations only contemplated a language test for confirmation, not a merit/suitability confirmation test.
- Rule 16 of SBI Rules is arbitrary and leads to indirect discrimination against PwBDs, violating Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 of the Constitution.
- Confirmation test must comply with the RPwD Act; equal treatment here leads to unequal results for PwBDs.
- RPwD Act mandates minimum 4% reservation at all stages including confirmation; failure to reserve is contrary to law.
- Reasonable accommodation not provided; recommendations of CCPwD for further relaxation and accommodation were binding and not followed.
- Challenged termination and claimed right to reinstatement.
Respondents
- Petitioner accepted appointment terms, including confirmation test, and cannot now challenge them.
- Probationers have no right to confirmation; suitability is managerial discretion beyond writ court review.
- Both SBBJ and SBI applied similar confirmation policies; test was adequately notified.
- Proper accommodation and relaxations (lower cut-off, scribe, extra time) were provided.
- Reservation applies only at recruitment, not confirmation. Supreme Court (Suman Mandal v. SBI) confirms no reservation at confirmation test.
- CCPwD recommendations are not binding; valid reasons for rejection were timely communicated.
- Petition is meritless and liable to be dismissed.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a 100% visually impaired OBC candidate, was appointed as a Probationary Officer by SBBJ in 2015 under the PwBD reserved category, with confirmation subject to a test. Pursuant to SBBJ’s 2017 merger with SBI, the petitioner became subject to SBI rules, including a confirmation screening test. He failed the test twice, despite relaxations and reasonable accommodation (lower qualifying marks, scribe, extra time), resulting in termination. Petitioner challenged the termination, Rule 16, and non-implementation of a favorable recommendation from CCPwD, seeking reservation at confirmation and other reliefs.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 3, 20, 21, 34 of the RPwD Act:
- Section 3: Prohibits discrimination; mandates reasonable accommodation.
- Section 20: Bars discrimination in employment, requires reasonable accommodation, prevents penalization for disability acquired during service.
- Section 21: Requires establishments to notify equal opportunity policies.
- Section 34: Mandates reservation of not less than 4% vacancies for PwBDs at initial recruitment; no mention of reservation at confirmation stage.
- Sections 75, 76 RPwD Act: CCPwD only makes recommendations; authorities may reject on valid reasons with intimation to the aggrieved party.
- Interpretation: The Act requires relaxations and reasonable accommodation for PwBDs at all employment stages, but reservation is statutorily limited to initial vacancies, not subsequent internal confirmations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There are no dissenting or separate concurring opinions; both judges agreed with the analysis and ultimate directions set out in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court required public authorities, before refusing CCPwD recommendations, to give written reasons both to the CCPwD and the aggrieved individual.
- Directed the employer to reconsider further relaxation/accommodation within four weeks, with reasoned communication to the petitioner, ensuring procedural fairness.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows and clarifies recent Supreme Court and High Court precedent regarding reservations and reasonable accommodation for PwBDs, and CCPwD’s powers.