Denial of relaxed evaluative benchmarks to persons with disabilities while extending them to SC/ST candidates violates Article 14.

The Petitioners, persons with benchmark disabilities (PwD), were recruited as Probationary Officers (POs) by the State Bank of India (SBI) in 2018.

Under SBI’s 2019 policy, POs underwent a continuous assessment of 1000 marks for two purposes: (i) confirmation in JMGS-I (requiring 50% marks, relaxed to 45% for SC/ST and PwD) and (ii) direct placement in the higher MMGS-II grade (requiring 75% marks, relaxed to 70% for SC/ST alone).

All Petitioners scored between 70% and 75%.

SBI granted the 5% relaxation to SC/ST candidates for MMGS-II placement but denied it to PwD candidates, treating them as general category for this specific benefit.

Petitioners challenged this exclusion as discriminatory under Article 14 and the RPwD Act, 2016.

1. Whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction and whether the petitions are barred by delay or acquiescence.

2. Whether direct placement in MMGS-II upon confirmation constitutes a promotion or an incentive-based placement route.

3. Whether SBI could validly grant a 5% relaxation to SC/ST candidates for MMGS-II placement while denying the same to PwD candidates within the same assessment framework.

4. Whether Article 335 of the Constitution or Government notifications regarding "reservation in promotion" justify the exclusion of PwD candidates from relaxed standards.

The Court applied Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

The principle from Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University that PwD candidates are entitled to the same relaxations as SC/ST candidates in the absence of a rational basis for distinction.

Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration, affirming parity in relaxed standards within the same selection framework.

The doctrine that disability rights extend beyond recruitment to encompass equal opportunity and career progression, as established in State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph and Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka.

The Court found that MMGS-II placement was an "incentive-based placement route" embedded in the confirmation process, not a regular promotion.

It rejected SBI's reliance on Article 335 and MoF notifications because those pertain to reservation of vacancies, whereas the issue here was the relaxation of qualifying marks.

The Court observed that SBI already recognized the need for parity by granting PwD candidates the same 45% relaxation as SC/STs for confirmation.

Therefore, denying the same parity for MMGS-II placement—within the same 1000-mark assessment—was arbitrary.

The Court held that once an employer creates a relaxation for one protected class (SC/ST), it cannot exclude another (PwD) without a rational nexus to the object of efficiency, which SBI failed to demonstrate.

The Court ordered SBI to: (i) read down the policy to extend the 5% relaxation to PwD candidates; (ii) grant Petitioners notional placement in MMGS-II from the date their batchmates were promoted; (iii) refix their seniority and pay notionally; (iv) pay differential monetary benefits within twelve weeks; and (v) allow Petitioners to participate in the MMGS-III promotional exercise with consequential benefits for the 2024-25 year.