Summary
The Court directed RBI to promote an employee with a disability after it had refused relaxation of his three-mark shortfall and denied reservation in Group A promotion. Both judges agreed on notional promotion from 27 September 2006, actual promotion and monetary benefits from 15 September 2014, and consequential retiral benefits. Their separate opinions differed on the broader reasoning underlying promotional reservation.
Issues
- Whether RBI could deny disability reservation in Group A promotion and refuse relaxation of a three-mark examination shortfall.
- What relief was appropriate in light of the litigation history and binding decisions on disability reservation.
- How the judges’ common disposition related to their differing observations on the constitutional basis of promotional reservation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 32 and 33, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995Datta J applied the binding decisions recognising reservation in identified promotional posts, including Groups A and B, and held that judicial interpretation related back to the statute. Bhat J agreed on relief while separately expressing reservations about the broader interpretation. (¶¶ Datta J: 13–18, Datta J: 35–42, Datta J: 45–50, Bhat J: 6–14)
- Section 34(1), first proviso, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The opinions noted the successor Act’s express provision for promotional reservation according to government instructions and the ensuing 2022 instructions and RBI circular. (¶¶ Datta J: 12, Datta J: 17, Datta J: 18, Datta J: 20, Datta J: 24, Datta J: 33, Bhat J: 10, Bhat J: 12, Bhat J: 14)
- Articles 16 and 142, Constitution of IndiaDatta J considered the employee’s right to fair promotional consideration and invoked complete-justice powers to settle his individual relief; Bhat J concurred in the resulting directions while cautioning against extending the reasoning to other horizontal categories. (¶¶ Datta J: 43–57, Bhat J: 1, Bhat J: 5, Bhat J: 10–14, Final Order)
Held
- Datta J held that the 1995 Act’s appointment reservation encompassed promotion, applying Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju and Leesamma Joseph. Reservation could not be confined to Groups C and D. The appellants’ questions concerning the older memoranda had accordingly become academic or stood answered by binding authority. (¶¶ Datta J: 16, Datta J: 18, Datta J: 35, Datta J: 36, Datta J: 37, Datta J: 38, Datta J: 39, Datta J: 40, Datta J: 41, Datta J: 42)
- Datta J explained that statutory interpretation ordinarily relates back to the law’s inception unless the Court expressly limits its operation prospectively. The cited disability-promotion decisions had imposed no such limitation, so absence of those decisions when the employee took the examination did not extinguish his statutory claim. (¶¶ Datta J: 45, Datta J: 46)
- On this record, refusing to condone the three-mark shortfall while neglecting to identify a suitable Group A promotional post was indefensible. Datta J considered the applicable concessions and the absence of any serious argument against assessing persons with disabilities by the relaxed standards applied to SC/ST candidates. (¶¶ Datta J: 47, Datta J: 48, Datta J: 49, Datta J: 50, Datta J: 51)
- The High Court had directed application of reservation policy rather than an unconditional promotion, and the employee’s claim concerning grace marks remained open through his review proceedings. To avoid further litigation, Article 142 was invoked to grant individual relief in the circumstances. (¶¶ Datta J: 52, Datta J: 53, Datta J: 54, Datta J: 55)
- Bhat J concurred in the relief but separately questioned the broader construction of promotional reservation under the 1995 Act in light of Indra Sawhney and Article 16. He cautioned that accommodation for persons with disabilities should not open a general entitlement to promotional reservation for every other horizontal category. These separate reservations did not alter the agreed operative directions. (¶¶ Bhat J: 1, Bhat J: 10, Bhat J: 11, Bhat J: 12, Bhat J: 13, Bhat J: 14, Final Order)
- RBI was directed to grant notional Assistant Manager Grade A promotion from 27 September 2006 and actual promotion from 15 September 2014 within two months. Monetary benefits from the latter date were to be computed and paid within four months; retiral benefits had to reflect the notional promotion date. (¶¶ Datta J: 56, Datta J: 57, Datta J: 58, Final Order)
Result
Appeals disposed of by common operative directions: notional promotion from 27 September 2006, actual promotion from 15 September 2014 within two months, monetary benefits from that date within four months, and consequential adjustment of retiral benefits. Parties to bear their own costs.