Bombay High Court
Shritij Mohan Shrivastava vs The Reserve Bank Of India Through The ... on 17 March, 2026
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
907-wpl-7619-2026.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.7619 OF 2026
JITENDRA Shritij Mohan Shrivastava ...Petitioner
SHANKAR
NIJASURE
Digitally signed by
JITENDRA SHANKAR
NIJASURE
Versus
Date: 2026.03.18
15:17:52 +0530
The Reserve Bank of India and Anr. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Shanay Shah with Mr. Tejas Popat, Mr. Roshil Nichani and Mr.
Aansh Desai i/b. Pythagoras Legal for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prasad Shenoy with Mr. Pradeep Mane and Ms. Shubhi Dotiya
i/b. Desai and Diwanji for the Respondent No.1.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2026.
ORDER :
1. The Petitioner has served the Respondents by way of private service and undertakes to file Affidavit of Service by tomorrow i.e. 18th March, 2026.
2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the impugned rejection communication dated 13th February, 2026 and the subsequent clarificatory email dated 16th February, 2026 issued by Respondent No.1. Further, direction is sought against 1/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 ::: 907-wpl-7619-2026.doc Respondent No.1 to forthwith reinstate the Petitioner's candidature and permit him to appear for the interview for the post of 'Officer in Grade B (DR) - General'.
3. This Petition has been moved by Mr. Shanay Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the ground of urgency in that the interview process is being conducted by the Respondent No.1 - Reserve Bank of India ("RBI") for the post of 'Officer in Grade B (DR) - General' and by virtue of the impugned communication dated 13th February, 2026 and subsequent clarificatory email dated 16th February, 2026, the Petitioner is unable to appear for the interview.
4. Mr. Shah has taken this Court through the advertisement dated 10th September, 2025 which had been issued by the Respondent No.1 - RBI for Direct Recruitment for the Posts of Officers in Grade 'B' (Direct Recruit-DR) (On Probation-OP) (General/DEPR/DSIM) Cadres - Panel Year-2025 in RBI. He has in particular referred to Item No.8 'For Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD)' of the table titled Detailed Notice forming part of the advertisement. This identifies the four categories of disabilities 2/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 ::: 907-wpl-7619-2026.doc and which include autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness.
5. Mr. Shah has also referred to sub-para 2 of Item No.8 which states that the bank has identified the following categories suitable for the posts mentioned below along with the functional requirements and only the following categories of PwBD candidates are therefore eligible to apply for the posts. For the Officers in Gr. 'B', the suitable category of Benchmark Disabilities is mentioned as ASD(M), MI, which stands for Autism Spectrum Disability (Mild) and Mental Illness.
6. Mr. Shah has also referred to Item No.11 viz. candidates to ensure their eligibility for the posts and provides that based on the online application, the candidates eligibility shall be determined only at the final stage i.e. interview stage. If at that stage, it is found that any information furnished in the online application is false / incorrect or if according to the board, the candidate does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for the post, his/her candidature will be cancelled and he/she will not be allowed to appear at the interview and claim any reimbursement towards traveling. Such candidates can 3/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 ::: 907-wpl-7619-2026.doc be removed from the bank's services without notice if he/she has already joined the bank.
7. Mr. Shah has then referred to the impugned communication dated 13th February, 2026 which is issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.1 - RBI, wherein reference has been invited to Item 8(2) of the detailed notice to advertisement dated 10th September, 2025 and in paragraph 3 it is stated that the Disability Certificate dated 29th June, 2022 issued by the Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital and Medical College, Sion, Mumbai certifies the case as Autism Spectrum Disorder with Learning Disability (Dyslexia and Dysgraphia) (60% permanent disability) and in view of which the Petitioner does not meet the specific category as per the said advertisement. Accordingly, the Petitioner's candidature has been rejected and he has been disallowed from appearing for the interview. The interview call letter dated 28th January, 2026 sent to the Petitioner's registered email has accordingly been withdrawn.
8. Mr. Shah has further referred to the clarificatory email dated 16th February, 2026 issued by the Respondent No.1 - RBI to the Petitioner wherein it is stated that as per the said advertisement, 4/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 ::: 907-wpl-7619-2026.doc eligibility for the post is restricted to the candidates with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Mild) and that learning disability is not a suitable category for the post.
9. Mr. Shah has submitted that the said advertisement dated 10th September, 2025 has made candidates with ASD (Mild) eligible for the Officer in Grade B ('subject post'). Further, the candidate having mental illness is also considered eligible for the subject post. He has submitted that merely because the Petitioner is having learning disability, he should not be considered ineligible taking into account that he is a person with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) and is required to be reasonably accommodated in the subject post.
10. Mr. Shah has referred to the Order passed by this Bench in Asha Dhondiram Shinde v. Union of India & Anr 1, wherein this Bench has followed the Supreme Court judgment in Re.: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Service and Sujata Bora. In particular, this Court has referred to paragraph 67 of Re.: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Service, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) 2 1 Writ Petition No.3672 of 2025 dated 27th February, 2026. 5/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 :::
907-wpl-7619-2026.doc of 2024 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481 which holds that the principal of reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in International Conventions, established jurisprudence and the RPwD Act mandate that the accommodations be provided to PwDs as a pre-requisite to assessing their eligibility. In the light of the above, any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PwDs, whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality. The commitment to ensure equal opportunities necessitates a structured and inclusive approach, where merit is evaluated with due regard to the reasonable accommodations required, thereby fostering judicial appointments that truly reflects the principal of fairness and justice. The Supreme Court has considered that it is the mandate of the RPwD Act that reasonable accommodation is provided to PwDs as a pre-requisite to assessing their eligibility.
11. Mr. Shah has further relied upon the judgment in Dharmendra Ravipratap Singh v. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors2 at paragraphs 30, 31 and 33. This Court in the said decision has held that the eligibility conditions are also required to be 2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom.2777.
6/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 :::
907-wpl-7619-2026.doc understood and interpreted from the point of view of the disability which the particular specially abled person is suffering. The qualifications as contained in advertisement are to be understood and interpreted in pragmatic manner and in light of the object of the aforementioned enactments which are to be fulfilled and for furthering the said object.
12. Mr. Shah has submitted that the Madras High Court in, K. Arvind Ramesh v. Reserve Bank of India 3, in a similar factual scenario as the present case held the Petitioner to be eligible to the subject post although not meeting the exact criteria laid down in the advertisement.
13. Mr. Shah has submitted that the Courts have accordingly taken a consistent view that reasonable accommodation is required to be granted to the Petitioners who are PwDs in determining their eligibility for the concerned post. He has accordingly submitted that necessary interim relief be granted in order to enable the Petitioner to appear for the interview without disqualifying the Petitioner on the ground that he is ineligible by reason of his suffering from learning 3 Writ Petition No.18980 of 2022 dated 2nd April, 2024. 7/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 :::
907-wpl-7619-2026.doc disability, although meeting the criteria of Autism Spectrum Disorder (Mild) for the post of 'Officer in Grade B (DR) - General'.
14. Mr. Prasad Shenoy, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 - RBI has opposed the interim relief sought for in the present Petition.
15. Mr. Shenoy has referred to the notification issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Union of India, dated 4th January, 2021 in which as against the subject post of Officer Grade 'B' for RBI, the criteria specifically mentioned for PwDs is ASD (M), MI. He has drawn a distinction with the post of Officer, Bank Policy & Planning, wherein the criteria for PwDs mentioned is ASD (M), SLD, MI. He has submitted that Union of India has in laying down the categories given due weightage to the work which each post entails and whether the PwD candidate would be able to handle such work as borne out from the column describing the same. He has submitted that the Respondent No.1 - RBI is bound by the said notification dated 4th January, 2021 and has thus incorporated the very same criteria in the said advertisement dated 10th September, 2025.
8/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 :::
907-wpl-7619-2026.doc
16. Having considered the submissions, we are of the prima facie view that the Petitioner who is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (Mild), which meets the criteria for the post of 'Officer in Grade B (DR) - General' should not be disqualified on the ground that he has in addition a learning disability (Dyslexia and Dysgraphia). The Petitioner's eligibility is in any event required to be determined at the final stage i.e. interview stage held by the Respondent No.1 - RBI as specifically provided in the detailed notice
- Item 11 of the said advertisement. Further, under Item 8 of the detailed notice 'For Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD)', the four categories of disabilities include Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), intellectual disability, Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and Mental Illness (MI). It is the contention of RBI that since the criteria for the subject post is only ASD (M), MI, the Specific Learning Disability (Dyslexia and Dysgraphia) does not fall within the said criteria. We prima facie do not find merit in this contention. We are of the prima facie view that no such distinction can be drawn i.e. by treating Specific Learning Disability differently from Autism Spectrum Disorder and/or Mental Illness. In any event, presuming such a distinction can be drawn, the Petitioner being a PwD is in accordance with settled law (Supra) required to be granted 9/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 ::: 907-wpl-7619-2026.doc reasonable accommodation as a pre-requisite to assessing his eligibility, particularly where in this case he meets the criteria for the subject post viz. ASD (M).
17. The rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner merely on the ground that the Petitioner is also suffering from learning disability (Dyslexia and Dysgraphia) is in our prima facie view unsustainable. The Respondent No.1 - RBI in the impugned communication read with the clarifactory email although admitting that the Petitioner suffers from ASD (M) and which is the criteria for the subject post has made him ineligible merely due to the fact that the Petitioner is suffering from learning disability.
18. Accordingly, as and by way of ad-interim relief, we direct the Respondent No.1 - RBI to provisionally allow the Petitioner to appear for the interview and the Petitioner's candidature will not be rejected on the premise that he is also suffering from learning disability (Dyslexia and Dysgraphia). This shall be subject to outcome of the present Petition.
19. The Advocates for the Respondent No.1 - RBI shall 10/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 ::: 907-wpl-7619-2026.doc inform their clients of this ad-interim Order and shall schedule the interview of the Petitioner by tomorrow i.e. 18th March, 2026.
20. The Respondent No.1 - RBI shall file Affidavit in Reply to the Writ Petition within a period of three weeks from today.
21. The Petitioner is at liberty to file Affidavit in Rejoinder thereto within a period of one week thereafter.
22. Place the Writ Petition for further consideration on 28th April, 2026.
23. The parties shall act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
[ ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ] 11/11 ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 20:45:47 :::