Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

$~70 to 73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 28 April, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 2577/2021 & CM APPL.7625/2021
SHIKHA KHUSHWAHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rizwan & Ms. Sachi Chopra,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar Pathak, SPC with Ms.
Akriti Pathak, Adv.
71
+ W.P.(C) 2581/2021 & CM APPL. 7630/2021
MANDAL BAPI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rizwan & Ms. Sachi Chopra,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar Pathak, SPC with Ms.
Akriti Pathak, Adv.
72
+ W.P.(C) 2583/2021 & CM APPLs.7632/2021 & 42169/2024
HARINDER SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rizwan & Ms. Sachi Chopra,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar Pathak, SPC with Ms.
Akriti Pathak, Adv.
73
+ W.P.(C) 2585/2021 & CM APPL.7635/2021
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rizwan & Ms. Sachi Chopra,
Advs.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 1 of 28

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar Pathak, SPC with Ms.
Akriti Pathak, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. These four petitions raise the same question and are, therefore,
decided by this common judgment. The Petitioners are persons with
benchmark disabilities. They were selected by the State Bank of India as
Probationary Officers in the 2018 batch against vacancies reserved for
persons with disabilities. After completing two years of probation and
continuous assessment, they were confirmed in Junior Management Grade
Scale-I. Their grievance is not about entry into service. Nor, properly
understood, is it a claim for reservation in promotion. The grievance is
narrower, but of real constitutional significance.
The Controversy
2. SBI framed a policy for training, confirmation and placement of
Probationary Officers and Trainee Officers by Circular No. CDO/STU-
rd
TRAINING/3/2019-20 dated 23 April, 2019. Under the circular, the same
continuous assessment of 1000 marks governed two consequences. First,
confirmation in JMGS-I. Second, direct placement or fitment in Middle
Management Grade Scale-II upon confirmation, for officers who achieved
the prescribed higher benchmark. For confirmation, SBI prescribed 50%
marks, relaxed to 45% for SC/ST and PwD candidates alike. For direct
placement in MMGS-II, SBI prescribed 75% marks, relaxed to 70% for
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 2 of 28

SC/ST candidates alone. PwD candidates were not extended the
corresponding relaxation.
3. All four Petitioners scored more than 700 marks out of 1000, but less
than 750. Had the 70% benchmark applicable to SC/ST candidates been
applied to PwD candidates as well, each Petitioner would have crossed the
eligibility threshold for consideration for placement in MMGS-II. The
dispute, therefore, lies in a narrow compass: whether SBI could, consistently
with Article 14 of the Constitution and the statutory protection accorded to
persons with disabilities, grant a 5% relaxation to PwD candidates at the
stage of confirmation, and yet deny them a corresponding relaxation for
direct placement in MMGS-II under the very same assessment policy, while
extending such relaxation to SC/ST candidates.
Factual background
4. The advertisement issued by SBI in April, 2018 invited applications
for recruitment of Probationary Officers. Clause 7, under the heading
“Joining, Training & Career Path”, stated that selected candidates would be
on probation for two years and would be subject to continuous assessment
during probation. Candidates qualifying the assessment as per standards
determined by SBI would be confirmed in JMGS-I. It further stated that
officers achieving higher standards or scores stipulated by the Bank may be
considered for direct placement in the next higher grade, namely MMGS-II,
immediately after confirmation. The said clause reads as follows:

7. “ JOINING, TRAINING & CAREER PATH:
The selected candidates will be exposed to basic banking knowledge,
before joining, through an online course and will have to mandatorily
complete this course before joining. The selected candidates, at the time
of joining, will have to execute a Bond for a value of Rs 2.00 lac (Rs Two
lac only) to serve the Bank for a minimum period of three years. The
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 3 of 28

Bond will be invoked by the Bank if the candidate resigns from the
service of the Bank before expiry of three years from the date of joining.
On joining, the selected candidates will be designated as “Probationary
Officers” and will be on probation for two years. They will be subjected
to continuous assessment during the probation period. Those candidates
who qualify in the assessment as per standards determined by the Bank
from time to time, will be confirmed in the Service of the Bank in Junior
Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-I). Further, those officers who
achieve higher standards/ scores stipulated by the Bank, may be
considered for direct placement in the next higher grade, Middle
Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-II) immediately after confirmation.
If any candidate fails to achieve minimum standards stipulated, his/ her
services may be terminated as per policy of the Bank in force at the
material time.
Bank provides immense opportunities for growth in career, including
opportunities for posting abroad. The attractive promotion policy of the
Bank provides an opportunity to the meritorious and exceptionally
brilliant officers to reach the Top Management Grade in a reasonably
quick time. ”

5. The appointment letters issued to the Petitioners required them to join
th
on 7 January, 2019. The appointment was on probation for two years. The
appointment terms also made confirmation subject to satisfactory
performance during branch postings, continuous assessment, pre-joining
assessment and completion of prescribed certificate courses.
6. The service conditions governing the Petitioners are set out in Chapter
IV of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992. Rule 16(1) provides that an
officer on probation shall be confirmed if the competent authority is satisfied
that the officer has successfully completed the prescribed institutional and
in-service training. The proviso to Rule 16(1) is of particular significance. It
enables the Bank, at its discretion, and subject to an assessment of merit and
suitability for future leadership roles through a prescribed screening process,
to not only confirm a Probationary Officer or Trainee Officer but also grant
placement or fitment in MMGS-II. The relevant provisions are extracted
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 4 of 28

below:
“ Appointment
14. (1) All appointments in and promotions to, the officers’ grades shall be
made by the competent authority in accordance with the policy or
guidelines, if any, laid down in this behalf by the Central Board or the
Executive Committee.

Note (1): Subject to such norms as may be prescribed by the Bank, such
appointments and promotions will be subject to medical fitness and sound
constitution of the person concerned to be certified by one or more
qualified medical practitioners approved by the Bank.
Note (2): Such appointments may be subject to verification of antecedents,
as may be prescribed by the Bank from time to time.

Probation
15. (1) A person appointed as a Probationary Officer or a Trainee Officer
shall be on probation for a period of two years.
15. (2) Any other employee promoted as an officer to the Junior
Management Grade shall be on probation for a period of one year.
15. (3) Any other person appointed to any grade including the Junior
Management Grade shall be on probation for such period as may be
decided by the competent authority.
Provided that the competent authority may, in the case of any officer,
reduce or dispense with the period of probation under this rule.
Confirmation
16 (1) An officer referred to in rule 15 shall be confirmed in the service of
the Bank, if in the opinion of the competent authority, the officer has
satisfactorily completed the training in any institution to which the officer
may have been deputed for the training, and the in-service training in the
Bank.
Provided, that Bank may at its discretion subject to the merit and
suitability of a Probationary Officer/Trainee Officer for future leadership
role, being determined through a screening process to be prescribed by
the Central Human Resources Committee may confirm and give placement
(fitment) to such officers in MMGS II.
Provided that an officer directly recruited in any grade may be required
also to pass a test in a language other than his mother tongue or a
professional course.
16 (2) If, in the opinion of the competent authority, an officer has not
satisfactorily completed either or both the trainings referred to in sub-rule
(1) or if the officer has not passed the test referred to therein or an
officer’s service is not satisfactory, the officer’s probation may be
extended by a further period not exceeding one year.”

Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 5 of 28

7. Thus, the governing rule itself describes this movement as “placement
(fitment)” upon confirmation. It is neither an ordinary promotion under a
later promotion cycle, nor a claim to a reserved promotional vacancy. It is a
special placement route created by SBI for officers who, at the end of
probation, are found to have achieved the standard fixed by the Bank for
immediate movement into MMGS-II. The placement is, therefore,
embedded within the confirmation process itself and is triggered by
performance in the same assessment cycle.
rd
8. The impugned circular dated 23 April, 2019 introduced a continuous
training and assessment structure of 1000 marks. The assessment included
pre-joining/pre-induction learning and certification, branch assessments,
Branch Manager Evaluation Reports, e-learning lessons, CIF/ACE/SP
certifications, credit certification, and Branch Manager’s Certificate
Programme. For confirmation, the circular stipulates:
“G. Confirmation as Officers
i. Probationary Officers/Trainee officers will be confirmed based on
the overall score under continuous assessment. POs/TOs scoring
minimum 50% marks (45% in case of SC/ST, PwD) under overall
assessment shall be confirmed in JMGS-1.
ii. POs/TOs scoring 75% (70% for SC/ST candidates) and above in
overall assessment shall be considered for placement in MMGS-II.
iii. However, for confirmation in Scale-II passing of Credit and
Branch Manager certification shall be mandatory (pre-requisite).”

th
9. The Petitioners were confirmed in JMGS-I with effect from 7
January, 2021. The final marks awarded to the Petitioners in the 1000-mark
assessment are as follows:

Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 6 of 28

10. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned exclusion is
arbitrary on its face on the following grounds:
10.1 SBI treated PwD candidates at par with SC/ST candidates for
confirmation in JMGS-I, but as general category candidates for direct
placement in MMGS-II, without any explanation. The same circular, the
same assessment, and the same officers are involved. Yet the relaxation
granted at the first stage is withheld at the second.
10.2 The Petitioners do not seek any dilution of standards, nor do they
claim automatic placement in MMGS-II on account of their disability. Their
case is that SBI itself created a 5% relaxation for SC/ST candidates in the
MMGS-II placement process. Once such relaxation was incorporated into
the policy, the exclusion of PwD candidates had to rest on a rational and
legally sustainable basis. None is shown to exist.
1
10.3 In Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University , it was held
that, in the absence of a rational basis, persons with disabilities are entitled
to the same relaxation as that granted to SC/ST candidates. This principle
was applied by the Supreme Court in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh

1
2012 SCC OnLine Del 4788
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 7 of 28

2
Administration , where a disabled candidate was held entitled to the same
relaxed standard prescribed for SC/ST candidates. The principle, therefore,
is not one of exemption from assessment. It is one of parity in the relaxed
standard, once such relaxation has already been accepted within the same
selection framework.
3
10.4 Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India , Siddaraju v. State of
4 5
Karnataka , and State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph , are relied upon to
submit that the rights of persons with disabilities do not exhaust themselves
at the stage of entry into service. Disability law does not permit an employer
to discharge its obligation at recruitment and thereafter leave the employee
to stagnate. Its guarantee extends to equal opportunity, fair progression, and
removal of barriers in service. The Petitioners’ case is not one of automatic
advancement, but of equal access to a placement benefit which SBI itself
created and relaxed for another protected class.
10.5 The Bank’s reliance on Article 335 of the Constitution and the
th
Ministry of Finance notification dated 4 March, 2002, proceeds on a
misplaced premise. Article 335 deals with the claims of SC/ST candidates in
services and posts, and its proviso permits relaxation of qualifying marks or
standards of evaluation in matters of promotion for SC/ST candidates. It
does not bar a public employer from extending a policy-based relaxation to
persons with disabilities. More importantly, the present dispute does not
concern reservation in promotion. It concerns direct placement or fitment in
MMGS-II upon confirmation, under a training and assessment policy framed

2
(2021) 19 SCC 813
3
(2016) 13 SCC 153
4
2020 SCC OnLine SC 45
5
Civil Appeal No. 59/2021
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 8 of 28

by SBI itself.
10.6 The preliminary objections on territorial jurisdiction, delay and
acquiescence do not withstand scrutiny. A material part of the cause of
action arises within Delhi. The Petitioners served in the New Delhi Circle,
their confirmation operated in Delhi, and the denial of MMGS-II placement
affected their service position in Delhi. Respondent No. 3, the Chief General
Manager of the New Delhi Circle, is also situated within the jurisdiction of
this Court. The objection founded on delay fares no better. Although the
rd
circular was issued on 23 April, 2019, the Petitioners’ grievance
crystallised only when SBI applied the impugned benchmark to the 2018
batch and denied them MMGS-II placement in January, 2021. They had
already represented in December, 2020 and January, 2021, and approached
this Court soon thereafter. Nor does their acceptance of appointment as
Probationary Officers amount to acquiescence. Acceptance of service cannot
operate as a waiver of the right to question a discriminatory exclusion
introduced and applied through a later assessment policy, particularly when
the challenge is not to the assessment itself, but to the unequal benchmark
applied within it.
Respondents’ submissions
11. SBI opposes the petitions on the following grounds:
11.1 The advertisement emanates from SBI’s Corporate Centre at Mumbai
and contains a jurisdiction clause confining disputes to Mumbai. The policy
circular also originates from the Corporate Centre. The Petitioners cannot
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court merely because they were posted in
Delhi when the relevant policy decision and the recruitment framework were
issued from Mumbai.
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 9 of 28

rd
11.2 The impugned circular was issued on 23 April, 2019. The Petitioners
joined service, completed probation, participated in the continuous
assessment process, and accepted confirmation in JMGS-I. They challenged
Clause 5(G)(ii) only after failing to secure placement in MMGS-II. The
challenge, therefore, is belated, having been raised after the Petitioners took
their chance under the very policy they now assail, and is liable to be
rejected on the grounds of delay, laches, and acquiescence. Reliance in this
6
regard is placed on the judgement in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley .
11.3 The rule against challenging the “rules of the game” applies with full
force. A candidate who participates in a selection or evaluation process with
knowledge of its governing conditions cannot, after an adverse outcome,
question the method or benchmark of selection. The Petitioners were aware
that the benchmark for MMGS-II placement was 75% for candidates other
than SC/ST candidates. Having participated on that basis, they cannot now
seek to reopen or alter the prescribed benchmark after failing to attain it.
11.4 Direct placement in MMGS-II upon confirmation does not follow
automatically from satisfactory completion of probation. It is a special
incentive route for officers who achieve a higher level of performance and
show suitability for future leadership roles. Clause 7 of the advertisement
uses the expression “may be considered” for direct placement in MMGS-II.
That language creates no vested right. It merely enables consideration of
officers who meet the higher standard fixed by the Bank.
11.5 Rule 16(1) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, preserves the
Bank’s discretion in the same terms. The proviso permits the Bank, subject
to merit and suitability of a Probationary Officer or Trainee Officer for a

6
2024 (15) SCC 215
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 10 of 28

future leadership role, to give placement or fitment in MMGS-II through a
screening process prescribed by the Central Human Resources Committee.
The standard for such fitment lies within the employer’s domain. Judicial
review cannot substitute a court-made benchmark for the one fixed by the
Bank.
11.6 The 2019 policy draws a legitimate distinction between confirmation
and MMGS-II placement. Confirmation in JMGS-I requires the minimum
standard needed to retain a probationary officer in service. For that purpose,
the general benchmark is 50%, relaxed to 45% for SC/ST and PwD
candidates. MMGS-II placement, however, identifies officers for accelerated
movement to a higher grade immediately upon confirmation. The Bank is
entitled to insist on a higher benchmark of 75% for such placement.
11.7 The Petitioners have already received the benefits available to PwD
candidates under the governing framework. They entered service against
vacancies reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. The recruitment
process extended the facilities contemplated for PwD candidates, including
scribe and compensatory time. The Bank also granted PwD candidates the
same 5% relaxation as SC/ST candidates for confirmation in JMGS-I. The
case, therefore, cannot be treated as one of denial of disability rights at large.
11.8 The Bank remains bound by Government instructions issued from time
to time. It cannot extend reservation or relaxation in placement/promotion
matters unless the governing instructions permit such extension. The proviso
to Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act also contemplates reservation in
promotion only in accordance with instructions issued by the appropriate
Government. No instruction of the appropriate Government requires SBI to
grant 5% relaxation to PwD candidates for direct placement in MMGS-II.
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 11 of 28

th
11.9 The internal memo dated 20 June, 2019 reflects this position. It refers
th
to the Ministry of Finance, Banking Division notification dated 4 March,
2002, which states that there is no reservation in promotion for physically
disabled persons in the case of promotion from clerical to officers’ grade.
Acting on that Government position, the Bank did not extend relaxation in
minimum qualifying marks to PwD candidates for placement in MMGS-II
upon confirmation.
11.10 Article 335 of the Constitution operates in the field of SC/ST claims
in services and posts. Its proviso permits relaxation in qualifying marks or
standards of evaluation in matters of promotion for SC/ST candidates. The
relaxation given to SC/ST candidates for MMGS-II placement rests on this
distinct constitutional setting. The Petitioners cannot invoke Article 14 to
transplant that SC/ST relaxation into the PwD framework when no
corresponding Government instruction exists.
11.11 The judgments relied upon by the Petitioners do not decide the present
controversy. The Respondents contend that landmark rulings such as
Anamol Bhandari and Siddaraju were decided under the repealed Persons
with Disabilities Act, 1995, and are inapplicable to the current statutory
framework of the 2016 Act. They further argue that Anamol Bhandari and
Aryan Raj arose strictly in the context of educational admissions and
academic aptitude tests; consequently, they do not lay down binding law
relating to employment or compel parity in a service placement policy
framed for accelerated movement to a higher managerial grade.
11.12 PwD candidates, who receive horizontal reservation under Article
16(1), cannot seek equivalence with SC/ST candidates, whose exclusive
right to relaxed evaluation standards is a specific Constitutional benefit
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 12 of 28

nd
under Article 335 and the 82 Amendment. Reliance is placed on the
distinction between horizontal and vertical reservation recognised in Indra
7
Sawhney & Ors. v Union of India and explained in Saurav Yadav v. State
8
of Uttar Pradesh .
11.13 The prescription of eligibility standards belongs to the employer.
9
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das , recognises
that the employer determines qualifications and eligibility conditions, and
the Court does not expand or alter them in judicial review. The same
restraint applies to SBI’s decision to prescribe 75% as the benchmark for
PwD candidates seeking MMGS-II placement.
11.14 PwD candidates were not excluded from MMGS-II placement as a
class. Those who secured 75% or more received placement in MMGS-II.
The Petitioners were not denied placement because of disability. They were
denied placement because they did not reach the prescribed benchmark.
Uniform application of the benchmark cannot be characterised as
discrimination.
11.15 It is further submitted that the direct placement route in MMGS-II was
part of the Bank’s manpower planning and operated as a discretionary
measure. The said route has since been discontinued for subsequent batches,
which, according to the Respondents, underscores that it was not a
continuing or vested avenue of progression. On that basis, it is contended
that no enforceable right can be claimed by the Petitioners to such placement
as a matter of course.
11.16 Subsequent developments also affect the relief. The Petitioners have

7
1992 Supp 3 SCC 217
8
2021 (4) SCC 542
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 13 of 28

not remained stuck in JMGS-I. Shikha Khushwaha, Harinder Singh and
th
Akhilesh Kumar Singh were promoted to MMGS-II on 18 April, 2023.
th
Mandal Bapi was promoted on 25 April, 2024. At the highest, the surviving
claim concerns retrospective placement and consequential benefits. It does
not justify unsettling the concluded 2021 assessment.
Issues
12. On the basis of the pleadings and submissions advanced, following
issues arise for consideration:
(i) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitions
and whether the challenge is defeated by delay, acquiescence, or the
Petitioners’ participation in the assessment process.
(ii) Whether direct placement/fitment in MMGS-II upon confirmation, under
Rule 16(1) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 and the circular dated
rd
23 April, 2019, is a promotion, a reserved promotional benefit, or an
incentive-based placement route created by SBI for Probationary Officers
who achieve the prescribed standard.
(iii) Whether SBI, having granted a 5% relaxation to PwD candidates at the
stage of confirmation in JMGS-I, could deny them the same relaxation for
direct placement/fitment in MMGS-II while granting such relaxation to
SC/ST candidates under the same continuous assessment scheme.
(iv) Whether SBI’s reliance on Article 335 of the Constitution, the proviso
to Section 34(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016, and the Ministry of Finance
th
notification dated 4 March, 2002 furnishes a valid basis to exclude PwD
candidates from the relaxed MMGS-II benchmark.
(v) If the exclusion is found unsustainable, what relief should follow,

9
2020 (12) SCALE 392
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 14 of 28

particularly when the Petitioners have since been promoted to MMGS-II in
the regular course.
Preliminary objections
13. The objection to territorial jurisdiction has no substance. The
Petitioners were appointed in the New Delhi Circle and served in branches
within Delhi. Their confirmation in JMGS-I operated in Delhi, and the
denial of direct placement in MMGS-II affected their service position in
Delhi. Respondent No. 3, the Chief General Manager, New Delhi Circle, is
also located within the jurisdiction of this Court. SBI’s Corporate Centre
may be in Mumbai, and the advertisement may contain a clause referring
disputes to Mumbai. Those facts do not curtail the constitutional jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226(2) once a material part of the cause of action
arises within Delhi.
14. The objection founded on delay is equally untenable. The circular was
rd
issued on 23 April, 2019, but the Petitioners’ grievance arose in its
operative form only when SBI applied the impugned benchmark to the 2018
batch and denied them MMGS-II placement in January, 2021. The
Petitioners had already represented in December, 2020 and January, 2021.
They approached this Court soon thereafter. This is not a stale claim revived
after years of inaction. It is a prompt challenge to the actual application of
the impugned clause.
15. The plea of acquiescence also fails. The Petitioners accepted
appointment as Probationary Officers and underwent the continuous
assessment prescribed by SBI. By doing so, they did not surrender their right
to question a discriminatory exclusion applied at the stage of MMGS-II
placement. The rule that a candidate who participates in a selection process
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 15 of 28

cannot later challenge the “rules of the game” has no mechanical application
here. The Petitioners do not challenge the evaluation merely because the
result went against them. They challenge the legality of a benchmark which
grants relaxation to SC/ST candidates but denies the same relaxation to PwD
candidates within the same assessment framework.
16. It is also relevant that the Petitioners raised their grievance before SBI
before or immediately after declaration of the assessment result. Their
challenge was not an afterthought fashioned for litigation. They placed the
issue before the Bank at the first available stage, and the Bank chose to
maintain the exclusion.
17. Delay and laches do not defeat a claim merely by lapse of time. The
Respondents place reliance on Mrinmoy Maity to contend that the petitions
are barred by delay and laches. The principle in Mrinmoy Maity is attracted
where a litigant approaches the Court after sleeping over his rights for a
considerable period. The Petitioners raised their grievance in December,
2020 and January, 2021, immediately upon the impending application and
actual application of the impugned benchmark, and approached this Court
without undue delay thereafter.
18. The challenge here is rooted in a violation of fundamental rights and
the statutory mandate of the RPWD Act, 2016, procedural bars cannot be
used to sanctify a facially discriminatory policy. For these reasons,
preliminary objections raised by SBI on the grounds of territorial
jurisdiction, delay and acquiescence, do not merit acceptance.
Nature of MMGS-II placement
19. SBI is correct to this extent: the process in question is not a regular
promotion exercise. Rule 16(1) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 16 of 28

uses the expression “placement (fitment)” in MMGS-II. Clause 7 of the
advertisement adopts the same idea. It states that officers who achieve the
higher standards or scores stipulated by the Bank may be considered for
direct placement in the next higher grade, namely MMGS-II, immediately
rd
after confirmation. The circular dated 23 April, 2019 carries this structure
forward.
20. This distinction is material because a substantial part of SBI’s defence
proceeds on the footing that the Petitioners seek reservation in promotion.
They actually do not. The present case does not concern reservation in
promotion under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, nor does it require the Court
to determine the scope of such reservation within SBI’s regular promotional
framework. The controversy arises within a distinct scheme: direct
placement or fitment in MMGS-II upon confirmation, based on the same
continuous assessment undertaken during probation.
21. The process is, therefore, better understood as an incentive-based
placement route. SBI designed it to identify Probationary Officers who, at
the end of training, had achieved the higher standard prescribed for
immediate fitment in MMGS-II. The Bank was entitled to prescribe a
demanding benchmark for that purpose. It did so by fixing 75% as the
general benchmark and chose to relax that benchmark to 70% for SC/ST
candidates.
22. Once the process is placed in its correct setting, the real issue
becomes clear: whether SBI, having relaxed the standard for one protected
class within this placement scheme, could deny the same relaxation to PwD
candidates, without a rational basis.
The flaw in SBI’s approach
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 17 of 28

23. SBI answers the Petitioners’ claim by saying that no Government
instruction mandates relaxation for PwD candidates in MMGS-II placement.
That contention does not address the issue. The relaxation granted to SC/ST
candidates for MMGS-II placement is itself a policy choice made by the
Bank. SBI’s affidavit says so in terms: concession is provided to SC/ST
employees for placement in MMGS-II by the Bank, but not to PwD
candidates, because there is no Government guideline providing such
concession to them.
24. The absence of a Government mandate cannot, by itself, justify
exclusion where the employer has voluntarily created a relaxation. A public
employer may frame a policy within the bounds of law. Once it does so, the
policy must answer Article 14. The Bank cannot sustain an exclusion merely
by saying that no external authority required inclusion. The issue is not
whether SBI was compelled to grant relaxation. The issue is whether, after
granting relaxation to one protected class within the same placement
scheme, it had a rational basis to deny the same relaxation to PwD
candidates.
th
25. SBI’s reliance on the Ministry of Finance notification dated 4
th
March, 2002, as reflected in its memo dated 20 June, 2019, suffers from the
same error. The memo records that there is no reservation in promotion for
physically disabled persons in cases of promotion from clerical to officers’
grade. It then concludes that relaxation in minimum qualifying marks is not
extended to PwD candidates for placement in MMGS-II upon confirmation.
26. That reasoning proceeds on a mistaken premise. The Petitioners were
not clerical employees seeking promotion to the officers’ cadre. They were
directly recruited Probationary Officers, already serving in the officers’
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 18 of 28

stream. They were undergoing the very assessment prescribed for
confirmation and possible fitment in MMGS-II. Nor were they asking SBI to
create a reserved promotional vacancy. Their grievance is that the relaxed
qualifying benchmark of 70%, granted to SC/ST candidates in the same
placement process, was arbitrarily denied to PwD candidates without any
reason tied to the object of the scheme.
27. Reservation and relaxation operate in different fields. Reservation
concerns earmarking of vacancies. Relaxation concerns the standard by
th
which eligibility or qualification is tested. The memo dated 20 June, 2019
conflates the two. It treats the absence of reservation in promotion as a
reason to deny relaxation in a placement assessment. That conclusion does
not follow.
28. The internal record makes the exclusion still harder to sustain. The
th
memo dated 20 March, 2019 is itself captioned as one concerning
“Relaxation/Concession to be extended to SC/ST/PWD candidates” for
confirmation in JMGS-I and direct placement in MMGS-II. Its opening
sentence records that relaxation in minimum qualifying marks may be
extended to SC/ST/PwD candidates. The underlying note goes further. It
records the Law Department’s view that, since concession had already been
provided to SC/ST/PwD candidates, it should not be withdrawn and may be
continued in overall marks both for confirmation in JMGS-I and direct
placement in MMGS-II. Yet the final clause, without explanation, confines
MMGS-II relaxation to SC/ST candidates alone.
29. This is not a case where the Court is asked to replace the employer’s
judgment with its own. The defect is more fundamental. The record does not
show a conscious and reasoned decision to exclude PwD candidates from
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 19 of 28

the MMGS-II relaxation. It shows an unexplained departure from SBI’s own
internal understanding that relaxation for SC/ST/PwD candidates was under
consideration for both stages. A policy may withstand judicial review even
if the Court might have taken a different view. It cannot do so where the
exclusion it creates is based on an erroneous premise and is unsupported by
any rational explanation.
30. SBI’s argument that some PwD candidates secured 75% and were
placed in MMGS-II is beside the point. That fact only shows that PwD
candidates were allowed to compete at the unrelaxed general benchmark.
The challenge is to the refusal to apply the relaxed benchmark. Equality is
not answered by saying that some members of a protected class could cross
a higher bar.
Article 14 and disability equality
31. Disability law no longer treats persons with disabilities as objects of
benevolence. It treats them as rights-bearing citizens entitled to dignity,
reasonable accommodation, equal opportunity and removal of barriers that
impede full participation. The RPwD Act, 2016 gives statutory force to this
shift. Section 34 deals with reservation, but the Act is not confined to
reservation. Its guarantee travels further. In public employment, equality
means more than entry into service. It includes fair evaluation, access to
progression, and standards that do not exclude persons with disabilities
without reason. This understanding is consistent with the constitutional
directive embodied in Article 41, which recognises the obligation of the
State to make effective provision for persons facing disablement.
32. In Anamol Bhandari , a Division Bench of this Court examined a
policy under which SC/ST candidates received 10% relaxation in eligibility
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 20 of 28

marks, while PwD candidates received only 5%. The Court did not accept
the plea that such a matter lay entirely in the domain of policy. It held that a
policy decision remains open to judicial review where it is arbitrary,
discriminatory, or offends Article 14. The Court recognised the disadvantage
faced by persons with disabilities and held, in that context, that they were at
least entitled to the same relaxation as SC/ST candidates, unless the
institution could justify a different standard.
33. Aryan Raj applies the same principle. The Supreme Court considered
a qualifying benchmark in an aptitude test and held that, where SC/ST
candidates were permitted to qualify at a relaxed standard, the same relaxed
standard had to be extended to candidates with disabilities, absent a rational
basis for differential treatment. The requirement of assessment was
preserved; what was impermissible was the unequal application of the
relaxed benchmark within the same framework.
34. SBI seeks to distinguish Anamol Bhandari and Aryan Raj on the
ground that they arose in the field of education, not service. That distinction
does not answer the principle for which the Petitioners rely on those
decisions. The principle is not confined to admissions. It is a principle of
equality. When a public institution grants relaxation to one protected class
and denies comparable relaxation to persons with disabilities in the same or
a comparable framework, it must justify the denial.
35. Rajeev Kumar Gupta , Siddaraju , and Leesamma Joseph recognise
the statutory and constitutional basis of rights of persons with disabilities in
public employment. In Rajeev Kumar Gupta , the Supreme Court held that
the benefit of reservation for persons with disabilities cannot be confined
only to identified posts at the stage of initial recruitment, and that such
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 21 of 28

reservation is not excluded from promotional avenues merely on that basis.
Siddaraju reiterates that the statutory mandate in favour of persons with
disabilities cannot be defeated by drawing distinctions in the mode of
recruitment or promotion. Leesamma Joseph affirms that the scheme of the
RPwD Act is to secure effective participation of persons with disabilities in
public employment. These decisions, while rendered in the context of
reservation in promotion, underscore that the guarantee of equality for
persons with disabilities is not exhausted at the stage of entry into service.
36. These decisions do not dispense with assessment or mandate
automatic advancement. They recognise that the rights of persons with
disabilities in public employment extend beyond initial recruitment and must
be realised within the governing framework of evaluation and progression.
The Petitioners’ claim is consistent with that framework. They underwent
the same assessment as their batchmates and seek only parity in the relaxed
qualifying standard already applied by SBI to SC/ST candidates.
Article 335
37. SBI’s reliance on Article 335 is misplaced at the threshold. Article
335 operates in the context of claims of SC/ST candidates in appointments
and in matters of reservation in promotion. The present case does not
concern reservation in promotion. It concerns direct placement or fitment in
MMGS-II upon confirmation under a training and assessment policy. Article
335, therefore, has no application.
38. Even otherwise, Article 335 does not assist SBI in the manner in
which it is invoked. Its proviso enables relaxation in qualifying marks or
lowering of standards of evaluation in matters concerning reservation in
promotion for SC/ST candidates. It is an enabling provision for SC/ST
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 22 of 28

candidates. It is not a prohibition against extending a policy-based relaxation
to persons with disabilities.
39. SBI may rely on Article 335, or on the policy framework flowing
from it, to justify the relaxation granted to SC/ST candidates. But Article
335 cannot become a reason to deny PwD candidates a relaxation which
otherwise satisfies Article 14. Nothing in Article 335 says that, once
relaxation is granted to SC/ST candidates, a public employer must withhold
a comparable relaxation from persons with disabilities. The provision does
not create a constitutional barrier against disability-inclusive policy.
40. SBI’s own conduct shows that efficiency was not understood as
incompatible with PwD relaxation. For confirmation in JMGS-I, the Bank
accepted 45% as the qualifying standard for SC/ST and PwD candidates
alike. It therefore recognised, within the very same circular, that a 5%
relaxation for PwD candidates remained consistent with service
requirements. The Bank has not explained why the same class of PwD
candidates, assessed in the same cycle and under the same 1000-mark
framework, became indistinguishable from general category candidates only
when the consequence shifted from confirmation in JMGS-I to direct
placement in MMGS-II.
Judicial review of the policy: precedents
41. The Court is mindful that prescription of service standards ordinarily
falls within the employer’s domain. A court does not sit over administrative
policy as an appellate authority. But deference has limits. A policy framed
by a public employer must still satisfy the minimum attributes of legality:
non-arbitrariness, consistency, rational classification and equal treatment.
42 . SBI relies on the decision in State Bank of Madhya Pradesh v.
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 23 of 28

10
Narmada Bachao Andolan to argue that the Bank has the absolute
competence to frame its own policies based on institutional requirements
and that such policies should not be interfered with merely because another
decision might have been “fairer or more scientific”.
43. They further cite the decision in SBI Scheduled Caste/Tribe
11
Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. State Bank of India to contend that granting
relaxations in service norms is a matter of administrative discretion and that
Article 16(4) confers no vested right upon employees to demand specific
evaluative standards.
44. However, reliance on these precedents is misplaced. In fact, Narmada
Bachao Andolan explicitly qualifies the immunity of policy decisions,
stating that a public policy can be challenged where it “offends some
constitutional or statutory provisions”.
45. SBI Scheduled Caste/Tribe Employees’ Welfare Assn. is also
distinguishable, as the Petitioners neither challenge the Bank’s
administrative wisdom in designing the assessment framework nor seek the
creation of a new reservation benefit; their grievance is confined to the
classification embedded in the policy, which extends a relaxed benchmark to
SC/ST candidates while denying it to PwD candidates.
46. In view of the above, the Respondents’ objection to judicial review
cannot be sustained. The present challenge does not invite the Court to
substitute its own policy or to recalibrate service standards. It is confined to
examining whether the classification introduced by Clause 5(G)(ii), within
the same assessment framework, satisfies the requirements of Article 14. To

10
2011 (7) SCC 639
11
1996 (4) SCC 119
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 24 of 28

that extent, the impugned policy remains fully amenable to judicial scrutiny.
Application to the Petitioners
47. The factual position leaves little room for debate. Each Petitioner
crossed 700 marks out of 1000 in the continuous assessment. None of them
reached the general benchmark of 750 marks. If PwD candidates had
received the same 5% relaxation for MMGS-II placement as they received
for JMGS-I confirmation, each Petitioner would have satisfied the eligibility
threshold of 700.
48. The classification is, therefore, stark. An SC/ST candidate securing
700 marks became eligible for MMGS-II placement, while a PwD candidate
securing the same marks did not. SBI has not demonstrated how this
exclusion bears any rational nexus with the object of identifying officers
suitable for future leadership.
49. SBI has also not shown any independent disqualification against any
Petitioner. It does not say that any of them failed a mandatory certification,
lacked suitability under Rule 16(1), or suffered from any adverse assessment
apart from the shortfall against the 75% benchmark. Once it is found that
PwD candidates were wrongly denied the benefit of the relaxed 70%
benchmark, the denial of direct placement in MMGS-II cannot stand.
50. The subsequent promotions of the Petitioners to MMGS-II do not
render the writ petitions infructuous, the challenge being to the denial of
placement in 2021 and the consequences flowing therefrom. They, in fact,
underscore that the denial was not founded on lack of suitability or any
concern of administrative efficiency, as each of the Petitioners has since
been found fit for MMGS-II.
51. Therefore, the effect of these promotions is only on the nature of
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 25 of 28

relief. Shikha Khushwaha, Harinder Singh and Akhilesh Kumar Singh were
th th
promoted to MMGS-II on 18 April, 2023, and Mandal Bapi on 25 April,
2024. In that light, the surviving claim is confined to correction of the 2021
denial and its consequences, including notional placement from the due date,
seniority, pay fixation, consequential service benefits, and eligibility for the
next promotional channel on that basis.
th
52. The order dated 9 January, 2025 assumes significance in this
context. SBI stated before the Court that, if the Petitioners succeed in these
writ petitions, they would be permitted to participate in the next promotional
exercise from MMGS-II to MMGS-III and, if successful, would receive
consequential benefit from the 2024-25 promotion year. The Court recorded
the assurance and bound SBI to it.
53. SBI cannot rely on the very denial now found unlawful to say that the
Petitioners lack the requisite length of service in MMGS-II for further
promotion. If they ought to have been treated as eligible for MMGS-II
placement in 2021, their service eligibility for the next channel of
advancement must also be examined on that corrected basis.
Conclusion
54. For the reasons aforesaid, Clause 5(G)(ii) of SBI Circular No.
rd
CDO/STU-TRAINING/3/2019-20 dated 23 April, 2019 is declared
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 to the extent it excludes PwD candidates
from the 5% relaxation granted to SC/ST candidates for direct placement in
MMGS-II upon confirmation.
55. The exclusion is not saved by Article 335, the proviso to Section
th
34(1) of the RPwD Act, the Ministry of Finance notification dated 4
th
March, 2002, or SBI’s internal memo dated 20 June, 2019. Those materials
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 26 of 28

concern reservation in promotion or distinct service situations. They do not
justify denial of parity in relaxation within a placement/fitment policy
framed by SBI itself for directly recruited Probationary Officers.
56. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the following terms:
rd
(i) Clause 5(G)(ii) of the circular dated 23 April, 2019 is read down, for
the 2018 Probationary Officer batch, to extend to PwD candidates the same
5% relaxation granted to SC/ST candidates for direct placement/fitment in
MMGS-II upon confirmation.
(ii) The Petitioners, having secured more than 700 marks out of 1000 in
the continuous assessment, shall be treated as having satisfied the relaxed
eligibility benchmark for direct placement/fitment in MMGS-II under the
2018 batch assessment.
(iii) SBI shall grant the Petitioners notional placement/fitment in MMGS-
II with effect from the date on which similarly placed officers of the 2018
Probationary Officer batch were granted direct placement/fitment in
MMGS-II pursuant to the same assessment process.
(iv) The Petitioners’ seniority in MMGS-II shall be refixed on that basis.
Their pay shall also be refixed notionally from the due date, with
consequential increments and service benefits.
(v) SBI shall release the differential monetary benefits arising from such
refixation for the period between the due date of notional MMGS-II
placement and the respective dates on which the Petitioners were actually
promoted to MMGS-II. The amounts shall be computed and paid within
twelve weeks from today. If SBI considers any particular monetary
component inadmissible under the applicable service rules, it shall pass a
reasoned order confined to that component within the same period. Such
Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 27 of 28

consideration shall not delay notional placement, seniority refixation, or
consequential service benefits.
th
(vi) In terms of the undertaking recorded by this Court on 9 January,
2025, SBI shall permit the Petitioners to participate in the next promotional
exercise for MMGS-III for which they become eligible on the basis of their
refixed MMGS-II placement. If they qualify in such exercise, they shall
receive consequential benefit from the promotion year 2024-25, in
accordance with the undertaking already recorded.
(vii) The entire exercise shall be completed within twelve weeks.
57. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.


SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 28, 2026

Signature Not Verified
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:25:05
W.P.(C) 2577/2021 Page 28 of 28