Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In view of the conclusions recorded by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta (concurred to by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Bhat) the appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions:

“We direct RBI to grant notional promotion to Mr. Nair on the post of Assistant Manager Grade – ‘A’, to be effective from the date of presentation of the writ petition before the High Court, i.e., 27th September, 2006 and actual promotion from 15th September, 2014, i.e., the last date for compliance of the order of the High Court. This exercise must be completed within a period of 2 (two) months from date. The monetary benefits accruing to Mr. Nair with effect from 15th September, 2014 shall be computed and released by 4 (four) months from Since Mr. Nair has a couple of years for his retirement on Reason: superannuation, it is needless to observe that in computing his retiral benefits due regard shall be given to his promotion, as directed above, with effect from 27 th September, 2006.

3. Mr. Nair, joined the services of the RBI, on 27 th September, 1990 as Coin/Note Examiner, Grade–II/Clerk on a vacancy reserved for a person with disability. In due course of time, Mr. Nair participated in the All India Merit Test for the Panel Year 2003, conducted sometime between 26th April and 3rd July, 2004 by the RBI, for securing his promotion to a Class–I post. The standards fixed for qualifying in the examination were the same for general candidates as well as persons with disabilities. Apart from fulfilling other conditions, Mr. Nair was required to obtain 95 (ninety-five) marks to qualify for promotion. Results were declared on 19 th October, 2004. Having obtained 92 (ninety-two) marks, he fell short of the qualifying marks by only 3 (three) marks. Notwithstanding fulfillment of other eligibility criteria for promotion, Mr. Nair was not considered for promotion owing to such shortfall. Since circulars issued by the GoI contemplated condonation of short fall to the extent of 5 (five) marks for SC/ST candidates, Mr. Nair submitted a representation dated 18th December, 2004 seeking grant of benefit of relaxation as available to him “on par with SC/ST category candidates” and also requested to include his name in the panel of selected candidates. By a reply dated 25th May, 2005, the RBI informed Mr. Nair that there is no provision for extending grace marks to persons with disabilities in promotional examinations. Immediately on the next day, Mr. Nair submitted a further representation and while inviting attention to circular dated 5th July, 2000 (extending reservation to physically handicapped persons in promotions up to S.O. Grade ‘A’ in the general side where not much of moving from the seat is involved) and the Master Circular dated 19th October, 2004 (hereafter ‘Master Circular’, for short) on the subject of ‘Reservation in Recruitment and Promotions in Bank’ for persons with disabilities, both issued by the RBI, sought remedial action. This was followed by a spate of representations which, however, proved abortive.

18. When the provisions of the PwD Act, 1995 and the PwD Act, 2016 in relation to reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities are contrasted, it is clear as crystal that what was implicit in the former has been made explicit by the latter.

19. This is the broad overview of the position of law, as it stands today, in regard to reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RBI:

20. Appearing in support of the appeal presented by the RBI, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel, contended that the High Court erred in making the directions it did. According to him, the circulars issued by the RBI restricted promotion of physically handicapped persons only to Group ‘C’ posts and within Group ‘D’ posts, and did not permit reservation in promotion in Group ‘A’ posts. That apart, OM dated 29th December, 2005 relied on by Mr. Nair did not extend any benefit of the nature claimed by Mr. Nair despite its modification by OM dated 3rd December, 2013. Thus, from whichever angle one looks at the circulars, resolving Mr. Nair’s grievance by considering him fit for promotion from the date of issuance of OM dated 29th December, 2005, as directed by the High Court, was not called for. He also contended that after the GoI issued OM dated 17th May, 2022, the RBI has also issued the circular dated 8th December, 2022, whereby requisite vacancies in Group ‘A’ posts have also been reserved for promotion of persons with disabilities. This circular dated 8th December, 2022 contemplates promotion of persons with disabilities upon qualifying in a departmental examination.

47. Thus held, the remaining impediment is with regard to condonation of shortfall of marks at par with the relaxed standards applicable to SC/ST candidates. We now proceed to examine whether the RBI was justified in not condoning the shortfall of 3 (three) marks pertaining to the 2003 examination taken by Mr. Nair to enable him secure promotion.

48. We have noted from the communication dated 18 th October, 2006 issued by the Banking Division, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, GoI that the same surfaced as a follow- up step to comply with this Court’s order dated 19 th March, 2002 in A.I. Confederation of the Blind (supra). Even otherwise, to reach out to persons with disabilities and grant them the facilities and benefits that the PwD Act, 1995 envisaged, it was rather harsh to apply standards which are applicable to general candidates to Mr. Nair while he competed with such general candidates for securing his promotion. RBI, as a model employer, ought to have taken an informed decision in this regard commensurate with the aspirations of persons with disabilities.