STATE BANK OF INDIA vs NAVEEN VENKATA YELURI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
Reserved On : 01/07/2026
Pronounced On : 20/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1591 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/14643/2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1591 of 2024
==================================================
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
Versus
NAVEEN VENKATA YELURI
==================================================
Appearance :
MR. KAMAL TRIVEDI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS. DHARMISHTA
RAVAL(707) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. GAUTAM JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH RAJVI PATEL(9620) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORSAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
[1] These facts are not in dispute.
[2] On 05.10.2021, the appellants – bank (hereinafter referred
to as “the bank”) published an advertisement inviting
applications for filling the post of Probationary Officers. This
advertisement also provided for reservation for persons with
disabilities. 20 posts were reserved for persons with locomotor
disabilities, 21 posts were reserved for visually impaired
Page 1 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
persons, 56 posts were reserved for persons with hearing
impairment, and 29 posts were reserved for persons with
specific learning disability, mental illness, autism spectrum
disorder and multiple disabilities.
[3] It is to be stated here at the outset that this writ petition
relates to a candidate who had availed of the reservation
earmarked for locomotor disabilities and this petition relates to
the filling up of a post in relation to the reserved category of
locomotor disabilities.
[4] On 15.03.2022, the Bank addressed a communication to
the respondent herein informing him that he was provisionally
selected for appointment as a Probationary Officer. This letter
also informed him that this provisional selection was subject to
him satisfactorily completing the appointment formalities,
including medical examinations.
[5] On 28.03.2022, the Bank informed the respondent by way
of an email calling upon him to report for a medical examination
and verification of his documents on 05.04.2022.
[6] On 06.04.2022 and on 07.04.2022, after subjecting the
respondent to a medical examination, reports were furnished by
Apollo Hospitals in which it was stated that the respondent had
undergone a kidney transplant and had also suffered post-renal
transplantation failure. It was also stated that since 2011, he
Page 2 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
had been on regular dialysis thrice a week. The report also
indicated that his serum creatinine level was 7.48 milligrams
instead of being within the limit of 0.7-1.2 milligrams.
[7] On 06.04.2022, the respondent also had voluntarily
subjected to a voluntary medical examination at two different
hospitals, i.e., the Institute of Kidney Diseases and by one Dr.
Tarun Madan, and both of them had certified that he was fit for
duty.
[8] On 07.04.2022, on the basis of the medical reports, the
Medical Officer of the Bank issued a medical fitness certificate
which, inter alia, stated that the respondent was not fit for
appointment. It was highlighted that the respondent had chronic
kidney disease and was on dialysis thrice a week and had, in
fact, undergone a kidney transplantation in the year 2011.
[9] On 25.04.2022, accepting this certificate regarding the
respondent being unfit for service, the bank informed the
respondent that he was ineligible for appointment.
[10] As a consequence, the respondent preferred a writ petition
challenging the said communication dated 25.04.2022 by which
the bank had concluded that he was ineligible to be appointed.
[11] The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, by
impugned order, has allowed the writ petition and has quashed
Page 3 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
this communication dated 25.04.2022 and has directed the bank
to issue an appointment order to the respondent as a
Probationary Officer. The learned Single Judge has also
observed that if the respondent completed his probation
successfully, he would then be entitled to appointment with
effect from the date on which the other candidates had been
selected as Probationary Officers pursuant to the selection made
under the advertisement dated 05.10.2021.
[12] In order to come to this conclusion that the respondent
was entitled to be appointed, the learned Single Judge has
recorded a finding that the act of the bank in holding that the
respondent was ineligible for appointment was a serious error,
inasmuch as a urologist’s report clearly mentioning the reason
for disqualification had not been secured. The learned Single
Judge has taken the view that the norms for determining
medical fitness were only general guidelines with regard to the
standard of medical fitness for new recruits and, unless there
was an overall evaluation by a specialist, the bank could not
have concluded that the respondent was ineligible for
appointment.
[13] The learned Single Judge also took the view that the
decision to hold that the respondent was ineligible because he
suffered a chronic kidney disease was not a disqualification
under clause-C, sub-clause (ii), sub-clause (b). The learned
Single Judge held that there was no specific provision under
Page 4 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
which chronic kidney disease, chronic renal disease or
hemodialysis had been specifically described as a
disqualification and, therefore, the order holding that he was
ineligible for appointment was incorrect. The learned Single
Judge, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case,
has held that the respondent would not be entitled to any
financial benefits.
[14] As a consequence, the bank is before us in the present
Letters Patent Appeal.
[15] Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with
Ms. Dharmishta Raval, learned advocate for the bank contended
that the entire approach of the learned Single Judge was
erroneous and was based on a misleading interpretation of the
norms prescribed regarding medical fitness. He submitted that
the guidelines specifically disqualified a candidate who had a
chronic renal disease from being appointed as a Probationary
Officer. He submitted that, as a matter of fact, if a candidate
had suffered kidney failure, he would be considered unfit for
service. Since the medical reports clearly indicated that the
respondent had not only suffered kidney failure but had
undergone a transplant and the transplant had also ended in a
failure, it was beyond any doubt that the respondent was unfit
for service as contemplated under the norms published by the
bank prescribing the standards of medical fitness for new
recruits.
Page 5 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
[16] Shri Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the
respondent did not and also could not dispute that he had
suffered kidney failure and, therefore, it was clear that the
respondent was inherently disqualified and medically unfit to be
in the service of the bank. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out
that this aspect of the matter has totally been ignored by the
learned Single Judge. It was argued that the learned Single
Judge had misdirected himself inasmuch as a reference had
been made only to that portion of the guidelines which required
a check-up of the candidate in order to ascertain whether he
was suffering from any issue which could later result in renal
failure, which would be a disqualification for service. He
submitted that the learned Single Judge ignored the earlier
clause in the prescribed standards which categorically stated
that kidney failure would render a candidate unfit for service.
[17] Shri Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel also argued that no
doubt reservation for about 20 posts had been made for persons
suffering from locomotor disability and while it was true that the
respondent did suffer from a locomotor disability, that only
amounted to a physical disability. He submitted that the rules
contemplated that a person with a physical disability would
necessarily have to be medically fit and should not suffer from
any medical disability. It was pointed out that a person with a
physical disability cannot under the garb of being entitled to
apply under the reserved category, get over the basic
Page 6 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
requirement of not suffering from any medical disability. He
submitted that so long as a candidate suffered from a medical
disability, even if he suffered from a physical disability, such a
candidate could not be appointed. He therefore prayed that the
order of the learned Single Judge be set aside.
[18] Shri Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on
the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
(i) In the case of Ranjit Kumar Rajak versus State
Bank of India reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 732 .
(ii) In the case of Indian Council of Agricultural
Research and another versus Shashi Gupta reported
in AIR 1994 SC 1241 .
(iii) In the case of State Bank of India versus
G.K.Deshak reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 70 .
(iv) In the case of Faizan Siddiqui versus Sashastra
Seema Bal reported in 2011 (124) DRJ 542 (DB) .
[19] Shri Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing with
Ms. Rajvi Patel, learned advocate for respondent contended that
the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any
interference. He submitted that when the bank had identified 20
posts for persons suffering with locomotor disability, apart from
Page 7 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
reserving more number of posts for other disabilities, and the
bank had categorically stated that the posts of Probationary
Officers had been identified as being suitable for persons falling
under the categories of disabilities defined in Schedule II to
Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act, 2016”), the bank could not raise the
question of medical disability to non-suit the respondent, who
was admittedly a person with a benchmark disability.
[20] Shri Joshi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that when
the advertisement specified a number of posts to be earmarked
for persons with disabilities, the bank was not justified in
contending that those disabilities were relatable only to physical
disability and not to medical disability. He submitted that if a
candidate suffered from a physical disability, the only question
to be considered by the bank was regarding his physical
disability and it had no right to consider his medical disability.
[21] Shri Joshi, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that if
candidates with physical disabilities were also suffering from
medical disabilities, the bank should show greater compassion
and consider such candidates for appointment. He submitted
that if the whole objective of providing reservations for persons
with disabilities is taken into consideration, the nature of the
disabilities would take a backseat, especially when the
candidates had benchmark disabilities. He submitted that the
bank having identified posts which were found suitable for
Page 8 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
being manned by persons with disabilities, could never contend
that such a candidate would be medically unfit for service.
[22] Shri Joshi, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the
reliance placed on the standards of medical fitness for the new
recruits / promotees dated 12.04.2012 had been classified into
different parts and the standards prescribed were different for
different kinds of ailments. The clause relating to kidney failure
upon which reliance was placed by the bank, could only be
applicable to persons who did not suffer from any physical
disability. He highlighted that Clause A of the standard medical
fitness clearly stated that it would apply to a candidate and
would only require that a candidate should be in good mental
and bodily health and free from any physical defect which was
likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties in
the bank. According to him, this presupposed that the norms
were for persons who were otherwise normal, but who suffered
from an internal ailment which was not visually assessable. He
submitted that since the standards categorically stated that a
person should be free from any physical defect, it would mean
that they had no application to a person who admittedly had a
physical disability and for whom specific reservation had been
made.
[23] Shri Joshi, learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that
the standards of fitness for new recruits had different parts
under Clause C. While Clause C(ii) related to a systematic
Page 9 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
examination, which required the ascertainment as to whether a
candidate had suffered from kidney failure, there was a
separate clause specifically enumerated for physically
handicapped candidates. This would, therefore, mean that only
the standards prescribed specifically for physically handicapped
candidates would be attracted to candidates who had applied
under the disabilities quota. He submitted that the last portion
of Clause C(x) categorically stated that in case of promotion to
posts which had been identified for persons with disabilities, the
standards of fitness prescribed for general candidates were
expressly made inapplicable. He therefore submitted that the
application of the standards of fitness prescribed for general
candidates would have absolutely no application.
[24] Shri Joshi, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the
following cases in support of his arguments:-
(i) In the case of State Bank of India versus Ranjit
Kumar Rajak passed in Civil Appeal No.1149 of 2010
decided on 03.11.2020 .
(ii) In the case of Union Bank of India and Ors.
versus Desh Deepak Dhamija passed by The High Court
of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No.169 of 2015 decided on 16.05.2016 .
(iii) In the case of Union Bank of India and Anr.
Page 10 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
versus Desh Deepak Dhamija and another passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.18806 of 2016 decided on 09.01.2019.
[25] In the light of the above arguments, the question that
arose for consideration in this appeal is whether a candidate
who had a locomotor disability and had applied for being
considered under the reserved category could be held to be
ineligible for selection on the ground that he suffered from a
medical ailment such as a kidney failure.
[26] At the outset, it is to be stated that Rule 14 of State Bank
of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Rules, 1992”) does specify that all appointments in the
officers’ grade shall be made by the competent authority in
accordance with the policy or guidelines, if any, laid down in
that behalf by the Central Board or the Executive Committee.
[27] The bank has formulated standards of medical fitness for
the new recruits / promotees under the e-circular dated
12.04.2012. Though this e-circular does not state that it was laid
down by the Central Board or the Executive Committee, since
standards have been prescribed, it will have to be assumed that
these standards of medical fitness for new recruits / promotees
are applicable.
[28] The e-circular is divided into three parts. Part A of the
norms relates to general guidelines and relates to the medical
Page 11 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
examination of a new recruit or a promotee and the same reads
as follows:-
“A. Aim of The Medical Examination
The Medical Examiner is expected to ensure that a candidate in
his existing state of health will be able to render uninterrupted
service to the Bank. Hence Medical Examiner must give a
thorough medical check-up. To be passed as fit for
appointment/promotion, a candidate must be in good mental and
bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to
interfere with the efficient performance of his duties in the
Bank.”
[29] As can be seen from the above, there is a specific mention
in this Part A that “ in order to be considered as fit for
appointment, a candidate must be in good mental and bodily
health and more importantly, free from any physical defect
which is likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his
duties to the bank” . Thus, the aim of the medical examination,
was essentially being directed at candidates to be appointed
with the specific stipulation that they should have no physical
defect. This would obviously mean that the standard of fitness,
in their entirety, cannot be applied to the persons with
disabilities since it is indisputable that the persons with
disabilities suffer from physical defects.
Page 12 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
[30] It is to be stated here that the revised instructions are
stated to have been formulated consequent upon the enactment
of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Act, 1995”) and the Government of India guidelines.
This thereby means that while formulating the norms of fitness,
the requirement of fitness from a person with disability has also
been taken into consideration.
[31] Part C of the Norms relates to the standard of fitness for
new recruits / promotees. While sub-clause (i) of Part C relates
to the measurement of height, weight, chest, etc., sub-clause (ii)
of Part C relates to systematic examination, which would be
relevant for this case having regard to the arguments advanced
by the learned Senior Counsel.
[32] Clause C(ii), which is in two parts, is extracted in its
entirety for the sake of clarity:-
“ C (ii) SYSTEMATIC EXAMINATION
(a) Examination of all systems is very essential so as to rule out
organic ailments which make a candidate unfit for service e.g.
extensive pulmonary tuberculosis, kidney failure, malignant
hypertension, severe diabetes, lung abscess, etc. Blood CBC
investigations for all candidates should be carried out and the
reports carefully examined. Also X-ray of the chest, P.A. view or
M/M X-ray in all cases should be insisted upon.
However, old healed Koch's cases of early and mild nature which
had involved a small part of one of the lobes of the lung may be
selected for fitness provided a check-up by TB specialists of
Page 13 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
Bank's choice gives a clear report confirming no active Koch's
lesion or recent attack thereof and provided the lesion were not
bilateral and/or extensive. Extensive investigation of such cases
inclusive of Tomograph is essential.
(b) Complete check-up of Genito Urinary System with stress on
testicles (Males). hydrocele or hernia, etc. should be detected if
any. If hydrocele or hernia of minor or major degree is present
the candidate should be advised to undergo an operation and
then should be referred for fresh examination.
A routine urine test should be carried out. In urine, the presence
of Glycosuria would necessitate Glucose Tolerance Curve. If
considerable albuminaria is present, the candidate should be
rejected after a thorough investigation.
Of late, there have been many cases of kidney failures resulting
in a transplant. Hence Genito-Urinary Tract examination and
investigations should be carried out by Medical Examiner. In
evaluation of such cases. Congenital Kidney Tumours, Nephritis
Pyeletes, Pyelo Nephritis, Malignant Hypertension and such
cases which damage the kidney in due course, would be
disqualification for service. However, before declaring a
candidate as unfit on these accounts an Urologist's report clearly
mentioning the reasons for disqualification is essential.”
[33] As could be seen from clause (ii)(a), if a new recruit has
kidney failure, that will render him unfit for service, and it is
therefore prescribed under these guidelines of Part C that an
examination is necessary. It is true that the learned Single
Judge has not taken into consideration clause (ii)(a), which
specifically indicates that a candidate with kidney failure would
be unfit for service.
[34] The learned Single Judge has, however, taken into
consideration clause C(ii)(b), which indicates that the bank had
noticed that there were many cases of kidney failures resulting
Page 14 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
in a transplant, which would be a disqualification of service, and
therefore prescribed that before declaring a candidate unfit on
that account, a urologist's report clearly mentioning the reasons
for disqualification was essential. The learned Single Judge has
taken the view that since there was no urologist's report clearly
mentioning the reasons for disqualification, the mere fact that
the respondent was undergoing dialysis would not render him
unfit for selection.
[35] The argument of the learned Senior Counsel that since the
respondent had already suffered kidney failure and had
undergone a renal transplant and thereafter suffered another
renal failure, no doubt makes Part C, sub-clause (ii)(a)
applicable. However, as already noticed above, the standards of
fitness for new recruits / promotees contemplated under Part C,
sub-clause (ii) can only be applicable to candidates who are
physically normal and who do not have any physical defect.
[36] The standard prescribed under Part C, sub-clause (ii)
regarding a systematic examination were only intended to
eliminate any hidden diseases in candidates who did not suffer
from any disabilities as contemplated under the Act and which
could render a candidate as being unfit for service in future. The
use of the expression that in order to be fit for appointment, a
candidate must be free from any physical defect and likely to
interfere with his efficient performance, as found in Part A, by
necessary implication excludes the applicability of Part C, sub-
Page 15 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
clause (ii), to persons with disabilities. This is fundamentally
because the aim of the medical examination contemplated under
Part A is in respect of candidates who are not suffering from any
physical defect. The aim of the medical examination is
fundamentally to find out any hidden problems which could
subsequently prevent the candidate from discharging his duties
and thereby hurt the interests of the bank.
[37] If, as a matter of fact, the bank had identified posts, as
required under the 1995 Act, to be filled by persons with
disabilities, this entire exercise would be inapplicable and
would, in fact, be a futile exercise. If a person is already
suffering from disabilities as contemplated under the 1995 Act,
the attempt by the bank to find out another disability to non-suit
such a candidate would fundamentally result in the bank
defeating the very purpose for which the 1995 Act has been
enacted, which is to encourage persons with disabilities to get
employed and lead a dignified life despite their glaring
disabilities.
[38] If the stand of the bank is to be accepted, namely, that a
person with a locomotor disability should not suffer from any
medical disability, the entire exercise would be a self-defeating.
The bank, in essence, would be undertaking an exercise in
which it seeks to purport to give a benefit to a person with a
benchmark disability, while at the same time, it is also finding
grounds to reject his candidature. If the purpose of the 1995 Act
Page 16 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
is to ensure that 4% of the jobs are reserved and provided for
persons with benchmark disabilities, the bank cannot delve
deeper into the condition of persons with a disability and non-
suit them on the ground that they are medically unfit.
[39] Apparently, a person with a benchmark disability is not fit
biologically and medically, and an attempt to segregate this
disability into a physical disability and a medical disability
would not be the correct approach. It would only mean that the
laudable objective of encouraging and assisting people with
disabilities to lead a dignified life is defeated.
[40] There is yet another reason why Part C, sub-clause (ii)
would be inapplicable to candidates with physical disability.
[41] As already pointed out, Part C, which relates to standards
of fitness for new recruits, has different sets of standards for
different kinds of ailments. There are 11 categories of medical
conditions envisaged in Part C, and they are as follows:-
“C. Standard of Fitness For New Recruits/Promotees:
(i) Measurement of Height, Weight, Chest, etc,
In the matter of correlation of age, height and weight of
candidates, Medical Examiners may refer to relevant standards.
The height-weight evaluation should, however, not be done in
isolation but will have to be done with reference to the general
state of health of the candidates and as such lower/higher weight
or height or obesity as compared to those prescribed in the
chart, need not be the sole reasons for dis-qualifying a candidate.
Page 17 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
If there be any disproportion with regard to height, weight and
chest girth, necessary investigation and X-ray of the chest may
be taken.
(ii) Systematic examination
(a) Examination of all systems is very essential so as to rule out
organic ailments which make a candidate unfit for service e.g.
extensive pulmonary tuberculosis, kidney failure, malignant
hypertension, severe diabetes, lung abscess, etc. Blood CBC
investigations for all candidates should be carried out and the
reports carefully examined. Also X-ray of the chest, P.A. view or
M/M X-ray in all cases should be insisted upon.
However, old healed Koch's cases of early and mild nature which
had involved a small part of one of the lobes of the lung may be
selected for fitness provided a check-up by TB specialists of Bank's
choice gives a clear report confirming no active Koch's lesion or
recent attack thereof and provided the lesion were not bilateral
and/or extensive. Extensive investigation of such cases inclusive of
Tomograph is essential.
(b) Complete check-up of Genito Urinary System with stress on
testicles (Males). hydrocele or hernia, etc. should be detected if any.
If hydrocele or hernia of minor or major degree is present the
candidate should be advised to undergo an operation and then
should be referred for fresh examination.
A routine urine test should be carried out. In urine, the presence of
Glycosuria would necessitate Glucose Tolerance Curve. If
considerable albuminaria is present, the candidate should be
rejected after a thorough investigation.
Of late, there have been many cases of kidney failures resulting
in a transplant. Hence Genito-Urinary Tract examination and
investigations should be carried out by Medical Examiner. In
evaluation of such cases. Congenital Kidney Tumours, Nephritis
Pyeletes, Pyelo Nephritis, Malignant Hypertension and such
cases which damage the kidney in due course, would be
disqualification for service. However, before declaring a
candidate as unfit on these accounts an Urologist's report clearly
mentioning the reasons for disqualification is essential.”
Page 18 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
(iii) CENTRAL AND PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
Organic complaints should be investigated. Any abnormality of
functional type should be carefully examined to ensure that it
should not hinder uninterrupted service to the Bank. History of
Epilepsy, Insanity or Psychiatric problems. Myopathies.
Peripheral Neurophathies should be a disqualification.
(iv) SKIN CONDITIONS
Leprosy and extensive generalised allergic dermatitis is a bar for
service. Leucoderma should not be a disqualification.
(v) METABOLIC AND ENDOCRINAL SYSTEM
Malignant Hypertension is a case for rejection. Controlled and
absolutely mild diabetes without any complication may be
considered fit for service.
(vi) E.N.T. SYSTEM
A thorough E.N.T. check-up including ear discharge, perforation,
deafness, vertigo, nasal discharge, nasal blocking, speech defects
should be done in each case. Deafness or foul smelling or chronic
discharge from the ear, nose, stammering of a severe nature,
should be regarded as a disqualification. However, candidates
should be referred to E.N.T. Surgeon for his opinion in case
ailments of this nature are detected by the medical examiners.
(vii) OPTHALMIC SYSTEM:
The medical standards for opthalmic system will be as per the
instructions contained in our e-circular no.
CDO/P&HRD-PM/43/2011-12 dated 12.07.11 (Annexure-C) and
as may be amended from time to time.
(viii) ORTHOPAEDIC SYSTEM
Candidate's limbs, hands and feet should be well formed and
developed and there should be free and perfect motion of all
joints. Any deformities or partial absence of extremities and/or
pathological condition of the locomotor system should be
referred to a suitable specialist for his expert opinion regarding
the fitness of the candidate's appointment in the Bank.
In this connection, please also refer to paragraph (x) below.
Page 19 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
(ix) HIV POSITIVE CASES
In the recent years, there is considerable increase in the
incidence of HIV positive cases in our country. Therefore it has
become essential to detect HIV positive cases, if any, at the time
of recruitment at any level in the. Bank to avoid such cases
becoming a liability to the Bank. It is essential to carry out HIV
testing for new entrants/fresh appointments.
Candidates found positive on the basis of "Elisa Test" should be
subjected to "Western Blot Test" also for further confirmation as
the "Elisa Test" has been found to be false in a few cases.
In this connection, the Government of India have advised that
persons who are otherwise eligible for employment but tested
positive for HIV should be granted normal rights of employment
as other members of the society and the HIV status of the person
should be kept confidential.
Therefore, it has been decided to adopt the following procedure
with regard to conduct of HIV tests:
The existing provision of subjecting the new recruits to HIV test
in addition to laid down examination/tests should be continued as
hitherto.
The candidates found HIV positive will be further subjected to
such medical examination as deemed necessary by the Bank's
Medical Officer to ascertain the candidate's ability to perform the
normal job requirements and also, absence of any risk or health
hazard the candidate may pose to others at the workplace. The
HIV status of such candidates will. however. be maintained
confidential.
The Bank will offer employment to only such of the HIV positive
candidates with ability to perform the normal job requirements
and only if they are not likely to cause any risk or health hazard
to others at work place. The Bank's Medical Officer should give
his certificate of fitness specifically on these two points.
The Bank's Medical Officer's certificate regarding the fitness of
such candidates will be final.
The provisions regarding HIV test would be applicable only to
Page 20 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
new entrants/fresh appointments
(x) PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED CANDIDATES
The following categories of candidates, may be considered for
appointment in clerical cadre but not as subordinate staff as per
extant instructions:
Loss of one arm, provided the candidate can write and work with
other hand.
Loss of leg(s), provided the candidate can move with artificial
leg. crutches, wheel chair etc.
Physically Handicapped candidates should be medically
examined by the Bank's Medical Officer who may accept the
disability certificate issued by the competent authority to the
extent of the disability of the candidate and carry out medical
examination for the rest of the factors. A suitable noting in this
regard will be made in the candidates' medical examination
report by the Medical Officer and the concerned appointing
authority will verify authenticity and validity of the certificate at
the time of recruitment in the Bank.
In case of employees joined the bank under physically
handicapped category, promotional opportunities should not be
denied to them for the reason of their physical disability,
provided they are eligible for such promotion. However, they
would be eligible for such promotion for only such posts which
are identified for persons with disabilities. In their case, to the
extant of their disability, the standards of fitness prescribed for
general candidates would not be applicable.
(XI) PREGNANT LADY EMPLOYEES:
They may be appointed in the Bank upto 6 months of pregnancy.
provided she furnishes a certificate from specialist gynecologist
that her taking up Bank's employment at that stage is in no way
likely to interfere with her pregnancy or the normal development
of the foetus, or is not likely to cause her miscarriage or
otherwise to adversely affect her health.
(XII) GENERAL
There will be no right of appeal available to the candidates
Page 21 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
against the decision of the Medical Examiner. If however, the
Bank is satisfied on the basis of the evidence produced before it
of the possibility of an error of judgement in the decision of the
Medical Examiner it is open to the Bank to allow an appeal to a
Medical Board which will be constituted as and when required.
Such appeal should however, be submitted by the candidate
within one month of the communication in which the decision of
the Medical Examiner is communicated to him/her. Otherwise no
request for any appeal to the Medical Board will be considered.
The Medical Board will consist of:
(i) Senior Medical Officer of the Circle;
(ii) Chief Medical Officer or any Senior Physician/Surgeon
vernment/Municipal Hospital; of
(iii) Senior Consultant of standing in the speciality concerned
where a candidate is declared unfit.
The choice of nomination on the Medical Board will be that of the
Bank. For re-examination, the candidate will be required to
deposit an appeal fee of Rs. 500/-. This fee will be refundable to
those candidates who are declared fit by the Board whereas in
the case of others it will be forfeited.
Report of the Medical Board will be final and will not be subject
to review by any other specialist panel or Board.
It should be clearly understood that the Bank reserves to itself
absolute discretion to reject or accept any candidate after
considering the report of the Medical Board.”
[42] As can be seen from the different kinds of ailments for
which standards of fitness have been prescribed. The bank,
while classifying different standards for different ailments has
laid down specific norms in respect of physically handicapped
candidates, and they read as follows:-
Page 22 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
(x) PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED CANDIDATES
The following categories of candidates, may be considered for
appointment in clerical cadre but not as subordinate staff as per
extant instructions:
Loss of one arm, provided the candidate can write and work with
other hand.
Loss of leg(s), provided the candidate can move with artificial
leg. crutches, wheel chair etc.
Physically Handicapped candidates should be medically
examined by the Bank's Medical Officer who may accept the
disability certificate issued by the competent authority to the
extent of the disability of the candidate and carry out medical
examination for the rest of the factors. A suitable noting in this
regard will be made in the candidates' medical examination
report by the Medical Officer and the concerned appointing
authority will verify authenticity and validity of the certificate at
the time of recruitment in the Bank.
In case of employees joined the bank under physically
handicapped category, promotional opportunities should not be
denied to them for the reason of their physical disability,
provided they are eligible for such promotion. However, they
would be eligible for such promotion for only such posts which
are identified for persons with disabilities. In their case, to the
extant of their disability, the standards of fitness prescribed for
general candidates would not be applicable.”
[43] As could be seen from the above, the physically
handicapped candidates are only required to be medically
examined by the bank's Medical Officer, who may accept the
disability certificate issued by the competent authority and
thereafter carry out a medical examination for the remaining
factors. A suitable noting regarding the disability is to be made,
and the appointing authority is required to verify the
authenticity and validity of the certificate.
Page 23 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
[44] The second Part of clause 11, which deals with the
promotion of persons who have joined the bank under the
physically handicapped category, categorically states that such
persons would be eligible for promotion only to those posts
which are identified for persons with disabilities. More
importantly, it categorically states that in case of promotion,
only the extent of the disability would be necessary to be looked
into and the standards of fitness prescribed for general
candidates would not be applicable. This particular clause,
though relating to promotion of employees who had been
appointed under the physically handicapped category, would
clearly mean that when it comes to a physically handicapped
candidate, the standards of fitness prescribed for general
candidates would be inapplicable.
[45] This would also lead to the inescapable conclusion that
Part C(ii), which relates to a systematic examination of
candidates in relation to general fitness cannot be applied to
physically handicapped candidates and can be made applicable
only to candidates who do not suffer from any disabilities as
contemplated under the 1995 Act. In other words, the norms
cannot be applied to candidates who suffer from any disabilities
as contemplated under the 1995 Act. As a result, any ailment
such as renal failure suffered by a physically handicapped
candidate cannot have a bearing on his appointment.
Page 24 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
[46] The matter may be looked at from a different angle. The
intent of the law is to rehabilitate people in our society who are
suffering from severe disabilities. If persons with disabilities are
classified further as people who have locomotor disability, are
visually impaired, have a hearing impairment, have specific
learning, mental illness, autism spectrum disorder or multiple
disabilities, and are also unfortunately suffering from a a
medical ailment, it would be even more necessary to promote
and support such candidates. People who not only have the
disabilities specified under the law but also additional medical
disabilities should attract a greater degree of assistance and a
greater compassion and sympathy should be shown towards
such employees who suffer from disabilities as envisaged under
the Act and whose disabilities are compounded by further
ailments such as renal failure, hypertension, etc.
[47] It has to be borne in mind that the ultimate objective of
the law is to ensure that persons with disabilities, as prescribed
under the Act, are rehabilitated into society and are enabled to
stand on their own legs, even though they may not physically
have those legs. If the intent of the law is to literally
superficially apply this principle and thereafter exclude them
from getting the benefit of reservation because they suffer from
other medical ailments, that would be a travesty of justice and
would be defeating the very purpose of granting reservation.
Page 25 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
[48] Having regard to the fact that the standards of fitness
prescribed for physically handicapped candidates have been
separately enumerated, and these standards also stipulate that
the standards of fitness prescribed for general candidates would
not be applicable, the argument of the bank that Part C, sub-
clause (ii)(b), which relates to a systematic examination of a
general candidate, should be made applicable, cannot be
accepted.
[49] It may be pertinent to notice here the case relating to this
very appellant bank in the case of Ranjit Kumar Rajak
(supra) may be noticed. In that case, the candidate therein, i.e.,
Ranjit Kumar Rajak, had been selected as a Probationary
Officer, just as the present respondent, and when he was sent
for a medical examination, it was found that he had earlier
undergone a renal transplantation. Therefore, the bank took the
view that he was ineligible for the post of a Probationary
Officer. The Bombay High Court taking into consideration that
notwithstanding the transplantation, there was clear evidence
that Ranjit Kumar Rajak was capable of discharging his duties
and the transplantation was not affecting his life in any manner,
directed the appellant bank to offer him an employment.
[50] However, the bank challenged the said order before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Versus Ranjit
Kumar Rajak passed in Civil Appeal No.1149 of 2010 .
Fortunately for Ranjit Kumar Rajak, during the pendency of the
Page 26 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he was
appointed by another bank, i.e., Union Bank of India, and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while taking note of this fact and
disposing of the appeal filed by SBI as infructuous, has observed
that the Union Bank of India had shown greater sensitivity than
the SBI Bank in the matter of recruiting a person who had
suffered renal failure. Despite this observation, the bank
appears to continue to be insensitive to people with renal
failure.
[51] The reliance placed on the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India versus
G.K.Deshak (supra) would be of no avail to the Bank, in that
case, the Supreme Court held that it was not open for the High
Court to take it upon itself to decide the question of medical
fitness and ought to relied upon the medical opinion.
[52] Firstly, that case was not in relation to a person who had
been appointed under the reservation mandated under the 1995
Act i.e., it was not in relation to a person with disabilities who
had been appointed under that reserved category. Secondly, in
that case, the Supreme Court was not dealing with norms which
had been specifically enumerated for candidates who were
physically handicapped.
[53] It may also be pertinent to notice here that the Supreme
Court even after noticing the candidate had a serious defect in
Page 27 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
his eye, nevertheless, directed the bank to continue him on
humanitarian grounds, thereby exemplifying the principle of the
employer having an obligation to show compassion to
candidates who have ailments.
[54] Similarly, the reliance placed on the decision rendered in
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (supra) can also be
of no avail. In that case also, the Supreme Court was dealing
with a case wherein the Tribunal had gone against the medical
opinion rendered by a medical board and the Apex court in that
context had held that it was for the employer to be satisfied on
the medical fitness of a person before offering him an
employment. In this case also, as in the earlier judgment, the
Apex Court was not dealing with a case of a physically candidate
who had been appointed under the physically handicapped
category and it was also not dealing with a case where the
norms were separately prescribed for candidates who were
physically handicapped.
[55] The reliance placed on the case of Ranjit Kumar Rajak
rendered by the Bombay High Court, though in relation to this
very SBI and though related to a case which involved a
candidate who had suffered a renal transplantation who was
found to be fit for appointment, will however not be applicable
to the facts of this case.
Page 28 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
[56] The Bombay High Court, has no doubt observed that the
1995 Act related to people with physical disabilities and there
was no law relating to medical disabilities, which would enable
a person with a medical disability i.e., a renal failure to secure
employment, was not considering a case relating to a person
who was physically handicapped and had been appointed under
that category.
[57] The Bombay High Court has also not considered the effect
of a seepage norm prescribed by SBI for physically handicapped
candidates and the clause of the general norms being
inapplicable to them. Thus, this judgment cannot aid the Bank.
[58] It must be noticed here that SBI had challenged this order
of the Bombay High Court which held that the person who had
suffered a renal failure should be appointed before the Supreme
Court and it is in that Civil Appeal No.1149 of 2010, the
Hon’ble Apex Court deprecated the stand of the Bank as being
insensitive. This observation of the Supreme Court, as observed
earlier, is against the Bank and therefore the reliance on the
High Court’s order would be counter productive to the Bank.
[59] Moreover, even otherwise, Clause-X pertaining to
Physically Handicapped Candidates, extracted in the foregoing
portion of this judgment, proceeds on the basis that the
disability does not hamper the functionality of a candidate and
that the concerned candidate, by and large, should be able to
Page 29 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
“function”. Naturally, not all handicapped individuals would
have the same level of functional inefficiency. If examined from
the said angle, bare minimum functionality to certain extent is
not ruled out. This is further fortified by that fact that minimum
extent of functionality is not prescribed as required by the
learned senior counsel for the appellant bank. Again, it is
nobody’s case that merely because there is kidney failure (which
bar for regular candidates), a disabled person suffering from the
same is immediately is rendered cent percent “non-functional”.
Rather, it is apparent that the respondent herein has competed
against other candidates and has successfully secured a
position, walking through the maze of the selection process.
Thus, if the candidate as such can “function”, there is no reason
for the Bank to divest a hardly earned opportunity from such
candidate. And with progress in medical science in this age of
Artificial Intelligence, it is only a matter of time before dialysis
is made much less cumbersome/time consuming. Hence, we
strongly reject any view leading to a conclusion which dissuades
Respondent from engaging in gainful employment.
[60] We are therefore of the view that the order of the learned
Single Judge, though not for the reasons stated therein but for
the reasons stated by us above, deserves to be upheld, and the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge to issue an
appointment order appointing the respondent on a probationary
basis does not call for interference.
Page 30 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026
C/LPA/1591/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2026
[61] The writ appeal is therefore dismissed.
[62] The bank shall implement the order passed by the learned
Single Judge within a period of eight weeks.
[63] All pending applications stand consigned to records.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
Further Order
When the judgment is pronounced, an oral request is
made on behalf of the appellants’ counsel for stay of the order.
We find no reason to entertain the request, and the same is
rejected.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
Page 31 of 31
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Wed Jul 22 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 22 11:09:36 IST 2026