The Delhi High Court has clarified that while the RPwD Act mandates reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) at the initial recruitment stage, there is no statutory or constitutional requirement for reservation at the stage of confirmation tests. However, “relaxed standards” and reasonable accommodation must be applied for the PwBD category in such internal assessments. The Court reaffirms Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedent, providing clear guidance for future employment and public law disputes involving PwBDs.
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 |
Petition disposed of; directions issued to consider further relaxation or accommodation within four weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner |
| 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 | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in the NCT of Delhi; persuasive for other High Courts and tribunals |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law; Employment Service Law; Disability Rights Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The RPwD Act mandates reservation of not less than 4% of cadre vacancies at the recruitment stage, not at the confirmation stage. Once appointed to a reserved post, a PwBD employee must undergo the standard (but reasonably relaxed) confirmation process; no further reservation is required at this stage. However, relaxed standards and reasonable accommodation must be provided to PwBDs for such internal tests, and if, after relaxation, adequate representation is not achieved, further relaxation may be considered. The recommendations of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) are not strictly binding, but the authority must provide valid reasons for non-acceptance and communicate the same to both the CCPwD and the aggrieved person. The Court directed respondent authorities to re-consider further relaxation/accommodation and to provide reasons if denied. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The judgment emphasizes the doctrine of substantive equality versus formal equality, indirect discrimination, the “super-statute” or quasi-constitutional status of the RPwD Act, and the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation and relaxed standards up to the point it does not prejudicially affect the organization. The Court draws on recent Supreme Court interpretations and DoPT Office Memoranda regarding relaxation of standards for PwBDs. It relies heavily on Section 34 of the RPwD Act and relevant Office Memoranda on promotion and confirmation for PwBDs. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a 100% blind OBC category Probationary Officer, was recruited by an SBI associate bank in 2015, which later merged with SBI. The petitioner failed to clear the mandatory confirmation tests twice (with relaxed standards and accommodations). His services were terminated. A government disabilities authority (CCPwD) recommended further accommodation, but SBI declined and provided reasons. The petitioner challenged the rule and the termination, seeking reservation at confirmation and quashing of the rule/termination. Respondents argued the confirmation test was valid, with due relaxation already provided, and that recommendations were not binding. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the National Capital Territory of Delhi |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and relevant tribunals; can be used as persuasive authority before the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | None specified; expresses agreement with recent Supreme Court and High Court precedent, does not overrule any cited precedent |
| Distinguishes | Clarifies the application of Suman Mondal (SLP(C) 17979/2023, SC), Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, and related precedent |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the RPwD Act does not mandate reservation for PwBDs at the confirmation/promotion test stage; reservation applies only at initial entry/recruitment.
- Holds that relaxed standards and reasonable accommodation in confirmation/internal tests for PwBDs are mandatory as per RPwD Act, Office Memoranda, and Supreme Court directions.
- Clarifies that the recommendations of the CCPwD are not binding; implementing authorities may reject them for valid reasons, which must be disclosed and communicated.
- Provides that courts cannot direct further relaxation for confirmation tests unless there is evidence of under-representation and/or unless the employer can provide further relaxation without prejudicing essential job functions.
- Reservation policy and relaxation benefits extend universally across verticals (including General and OBC), and should be parity-based with other reserved categories.
- Reaffirms that employees subject to relaxed criteria at recruitment cannot claim further relaxation by default at confirmation unless mandated by express policy or rule.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first addressed whether SBI (and SBI’s associates, post-merger) were entitled to conduct a confirmation test. It found that the regulatory framework and the appointment letter clearly contemplated such a test and that the petitioner, by participating, was estopped from challenging it.
- The core legal issue was whether the RPwD Act requires reservation for PwBDs at the stage of confirmation (i.e., after appointment). Relying on statutory text and Supreme Court precedent (Suman Mondal v. SBI), the Court held that the reservation obligation is limited to the entry level.
- The Court distinguished between reservation (i.e., reserved posts) and “relaxed standards”/reasonable accommodation, the latter being mandated at all stages, including confirmation. It drew on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, which recognizes indirect discrimination, requires parity-based relaxation, and treating PwBDs as a horizontal category.
- The Court highlighted Office Memoranda (DoPT, 15.01.2018 and 17.05.2022) requiring selection on relaxed standards for unfilled PwBD posts but not at the cost of essential service requirements.
- The Court addressed the legal effect of CCPwD recommendations, quoting Sections 75-76 of the RPwD Act and applying Delhi High Court precedent (Mukesh Kumar v. NPTI), concluding that recommendations are not binding per se, but reasons for rejection must be given and communicated.
- As sufficient material was lacking on whether further relaxation would be possible without prejudicing job functions, the Court directed SBI to reconsider and explain their decision in the petitioner’s case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The confirmation test at the post-recruitment stage was not contemplated by the original recruitment advertisement or appointment letter.
- Rule 16 of SBI Officers Service Rules is arbitrary, confers unguided discretion, and indirectly discriminates against PwBDs, violating Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
- The RPwD Act and related guidelines require a minimum 4% reservation for PwBDs at all stages, including confirmation, as well as reasonable accommodation.
- Various authorities (Office Memoranda, Standing Committee Reports) and Supreme Court cases reinforce substantive equality for PwBDs and the requirement to avoid indirect discrimination.
- SBI failed to provide adequate accommodation, i.e., further relaxation or training, and did not implement the CCPwD’s recommendations effectively.
Respondent
- The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of employment, including the confirmation test, and cannot challenge them subsequently.
- Probationary Officers have no right to confirmation; suitability for confirmation is the employer’s prerogative and not judicially reviewable.
- Both the original and merged banks followed the same confirmation process, which was disclosed in the appointment materials.
- Relaxed standards and full reasonable accommodation were already provided (extra attempts, scribe, time, lower pass marks), and the petitioner failed to meet them.
- Judicial and executive precedent (including Suman Mondal v. SBI, Veerpal Kaur v. SBI) confirm no reservation at the confirmation stage.
- CCPwD recommendations are advisory; rejection was communicated with reasons as required by law.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a 100% visually impaired (blind) Probationary Officer and OBC category candidate, was recruited in 2015 as an Assistant Manager in a former Associate Bank of SBI, which was later merged into SBI in 2017. As per post-merger rules, the petitioner had to clear a mandatory confirmation test to be confirmed in service. He failed the test twice, even after availing relaxed standards and accommodations. His services were terminated as per Rule 16 of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules. The petitioner thereafter approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, whose recommendations for further accommodation were not accepted by SBI. The writ petition challenged the confirmation test rule, termination, and the non-enforcement of the CCPwD’s recommendations.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 34 RPwD Act: Mandates not less than 4% reservation of total cadre vacancies for PwBDs at the stage of initial recruitment. Does not stipulate reservation at the confirmation or promotion stage.
- Sections 3, 20, 21 RPwD Act: Prohibit discrimination, require reasonable accommodation, and call for an equal opportunity policy applicable to all employment matters (including confirmation procedures).
- Section 76 RPwD Act: Articulates that CCPwD recommendations are not binding per se; the authority must provide reasons for rejection.
- Office Memoranda 15.01.2018, 17.05.2022 (DoPT): Allow for relaxed standards for PwBDs to fill reserved posts when insufficient suitable candidates are available, but restrict further relaxation unless justified by policy and without sacrificing essential service standards.
- The Court references the definitions of “discrimination” and “reasonable accommodation” under the Act, highlighting the principle of substantive as opposed to formal equality.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separately concurring opinions. Both judges agreed on the reasoning and outcome.
Procedural Innovations
- Directs that if a respondent refuses to implement further relaxation or accommodation for PwBD confirmation tests, they must promptly provide reasons to both the petitioner and the CCPwD.
- Institutes a four-week window for reconsideration and communication of the decision regarding further relaxation/accommodation, aiming to enforce the process specified by Section 76 RPwD Act.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedent regarding reservation and relaxation standards for PwBDs in employment confirmation.
- 🚨 Clarifies effect and scope of CCPwD recommendations, significant for future administrative litigation.