Mandatory Experience Criteria in Bank Promotion Policies Must Undergo Scrutiny for Reasonable Accommodation of Visually Impaired Officers

The Petitioner, representing over 600 visually impaired bank employees, challenged Clause D of the State Bank of India’s (SBI) promotion policy.

The policy mandates prior experience as a Branch Manager or in Credit/Trade Finance/Forex roles as a prerequisite for promotion from Scale III to IV and Scale IV to V.

The Petitioner contends these roles are inherently inaccessible due to visual tasks like verifying signatures, physical inspections, and monitoring CCTV, for which no assistive technology is provided.

Despite a 2022 recommendation from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) to modify the policy and provide reasonable accommodation, SBI refused to comply, asserting that many visually impaired officers were already successfully discharging these duties.

The court applied Section 20(3) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which prohibits the denial of promotion merely on the ground of disability.

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph, which held that functional requirements must not become a ruse to deny promotion or cause stagnation for PwDs.

It invoked the principle from Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services [2025 INSC 300], emphasizing that facially neutral criteria may result in "indirect discrimination" if they disproportionately disadvantage disabled persons.

The Court also noted the administrative autonomy of SBI under Section 43(1) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955.

The Court observed that while the promotion policy appears neutral, it may create systemic barriers (indirect discrimination) if the mandatory roles involve tasks that cannot be performed without assistive technology or reasonable accommodation.

The Petitioner highlighted specific visual tasks (e.g., tallying gold loan bags, perusing manuscripts) that lack assistive solutions.

Conversely, SBI argued that several visually impaired officers had already qualified for promotion under these criteria.

The Court found that while SBI has the autonomy to set standards, it must ensure a "level playing field".

Because the Petitioner failed to identify specific affected individuals or provide concrete technical solutions, the Court determined that a structured dialogue between the Association and the Bank was necessary to reconcile operational requirements with the mandate of the RPwD Act.

SBI’s Board of Directors is directed to afford the Petitioner a hearing and consider modifying the policy to provide "reasonable accommodation," such as according equivalent weightage to alternative roles suited for the visually impaired, within twelve weeks thereafter.

The petition was disposed of with these directions to ensure compliance with the spirit of the RPwD Act.