Denial of Relaxed Evaluative Standards to Pwd Candidates Equivalent to SC/ST Categories Violates Article 14

In brief

The question

1. Whether SBI’s denial of a 5% relaxation to PwD candidates for MMGS-II placement, while granting it to SC/ST candidates under the same assessment policy, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14

The court held

The Court allowed the petitions, declaring Clause 5(G)(ii) of the 2019 Circular arbitrary and violative of Article 14

It also directed

It held that PwD candidates are entitled to the same 5% relaxation (70% benchmark) as SC/ST candidates for MMGS-II placement

The Court ordered SBI to: (i) grant Petitioners notional placement in MMGS-II effective from the date their 2018 batchmates were placed; (ii) refix their seniority and pay notionally; (iii) release differential monetary benefits within twelve weeks; and (iv) allow them to participate in the MMGS-III promotional exercise with consequential benefits from 2024-25

01Facts

The Petitioners, Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwD), were recruited as Probationary Officers (PO) by the State Bank of India (SBI) in 2018 against reserved vacancies

p. 2

Per SBI’s 2019 assessment policy, POs underwent a 1000-mark continuous assessment governing two outcomes: (i) confirmation in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (JMGS-I) and (ii) direct placement in Middle Management Grade Scale-II (MMGS-II) for high achievers

pp. 2-3

For confirmation, SBI allowed a 5% relaxation (45% vs 50%) to both SC/ST and PwD candidates

p. 6

However, for direct MMGS-II placement, SBI granted a 5% relaxation (70% vs 75%) solely to SC/ST candidates, denying it to PwD candidates

p. 3, 6

All Petitioners scored above 70% but below 75%

pp. 6-7

They challenged this exclusion as discriminatory under Article 14 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether SBI’s denial of a 5% relaxation to PwD candidates for MMGS-II placement, while granting it to SC/ST candidates under the same assessment policy, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14

p. 14, para 12

ii.2. Whether such placement constitutes "reservation in promotion" governed by Article 335 or a policy-based "fitment" route

p. 14, para 12

iii.3. Whether the absence of specific government instructions justifies the exclusion of PwD from relaxed evaluative standards

p. 14, para 12

03Law Applied

Article 14 of the Constitution regarding the right to equality and non-discrimination

p. 20

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, emphasizing the mandate for reasonable accommodation and equal opportunity in progression

pp. 20-21

The court followed the precedent in Anamol Bhandari v. Delhi Technological University, which held that PwD candidates are entitled to the same relaxations as SC/ST candidates in the absence of a rational basis for differentiation

p. 7, 20

Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration to establish parity in relaxed standards within the same selection framework

pp. 7-8

Article 335 enables SC/ST concessions but does not prohibit extending similar policy-based relaxations to PwD

pp. 22-23

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court determined that the MMGS-II movement was a "placement/fitment" route embedded in the confirmation process, not a standard promotional exercise

p. 17

It found that SBI failed to provide a rational basis for treating PwD and SC/ST candidates identically at the confirmation stage (JMGS-I) but differently for higher placement (MMGS-II) within the same 1000-mark assessment

pp. 18-19

The Court rejected SBI’s reliance on the absence of government mandates, ruling that once an employer voluntarily creates a relaxation policy for one protected class, the exclusion of another (PwD) must withstand the test of Article 14

pp. 18-19

Internal documents showed the Bank's Law Department initially suggested extending concessions to PwD, but the final policy arbitrarily withdrew it

pp. 19-20

The Court held that "efficiency of service" was not a valid defense since PwD were already granted relaxation for confirmation, and subsequent regular promotions of the Petitioners proved their suitability

p. 23, 25