Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Peeyush Kumar Singhania vs Union Bank Of India on 31 October, 2022

Author: Rekha Palli

Bench: Rekha Palli

                          $~14
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    W.P.(C) 6325/2020 & CM APPL. 22451/2020 (stay)
                               PEEYUSH KUMAR SINGHANIA                     ..... Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr.Ashish Chauhan, Adv.
                                                versus
                               UNION BANK OF INDIA                         ..... Respondent
                                                Through: Mr.O.P.Gaggar & Mr.Sachinra Karn,
                                                Advs.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
                                                ORDER

% 31.10.2022

1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the circular dated 04.11.2019 vide which the respondent/bank had invited applications for promotion from the post of MMGS-III to SGMS-IV. The grievance of the petitioner, who is a physically disabled candidate, is that even though as per the mandate of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, it was incumbent upon the respondent to grant 4% reservation to persons with disabilities, the respondent had, while announcing the result of the promotional examination for promotion to SGMS-IV, not catered for the said statutory reservation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 13 SCC 153, Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka (2020) 19 SCC 572 and State of Kerala & Ors. vs. Leesamma Joseph (2021) 9 SCC 208, the respondent was obliged to grant the said reservation and merely because the respondent had, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:01.11.2022 15:04:10 before issuing circular dated 04.11.2019 inviting applications for the promotional examination not specified anything in this regard, would not absolve them of their duty to fulfil their obligation under the Statute. He further submits that as the impugned circular dated 04.11.2019 was silent on the aforesaid aspect, the petitioner remained under a genuine belief that while issuing the promotion order, the respondent/bank, being a public authority, would follow the mandate under Section 34 of the Act. It is only when the petitioner was not promoted, he sought information under the RTI Act and learnt that the respondent had not made any reservation for physically disabled candidates and therefore it is only at that stage that the petitioner approached this Court.

3. On the other hand, Mr.Gaggar, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition on the ground of delay by urging that the petitioner has approached this Court much after the completion of the promotional process and that too after the erstwhile Andhra Bank had already merged with the Union Bank of India on 01.04.2020. He further submits that the respondent/bank being a public bank is bound by the guidelines issued by the Central Government, which has for the first time on 17.05.2022 issued guidelines for reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities in promotion to certain categories. While praying for time to place on record a copy of the office memorandum dated 17.05.2022 issued by the Central Government, he submits that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief till the Central Government issues direction for reservation of promotion from any prior date and that too in the category of SGMS IV.

4. In the light of this stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral prayer for impleading, the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance as a co- respondent. The said oral request is accepted and Ministry of Finance through Department of Financial Services is impleaded as respondent no.2. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within one week.

5. Upon the petitioner taking steps, issue notice to the newly added respondent through all permissible modes.

6. List on 12.12.2022.

7. In the meanwhile, it will be open for the learned counsel for the respondent to file a copy of the O.M. dated 17.05.2022.

REKHA PALLI, J OCTOBER 31, 2022/kk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Signing Date:01.11.2022 15:04:10