Delhi High Court: Failure to Provide 4% Reservation for PwBD in Confirmation Test Violates RPwD Act.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court held that an employee with benchmark disability (PwBD) is entitled, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), to have a minimum of 4% reservation in confirmation-tests for confirmation of service, and that indirect discrimination through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers must be interfered with to uphold substantive equality. The Court found that the bank employer’s confirmation test rules and merger arrangements adversely impacted the petitioner (a PwBD) and warranted relief despite his probationary status.

Background:

• The petitioner, a person with benchmark disability, was appointed a Probationary Officer and later terminated for failing the “confirmation test” of State Bank of India (SBI) following the merger of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (SBBJ) into SBI.

• The petitioner argued that Rules and circulars governing the confirmation test did not identify or reserve a minimum of 4% of seats for persons with disabilities under Sections 33 & 34 of the RPwD Act; that indirect discrimination resulted; and challenged the termination letter and confirmation policy as unconstitutional.

• The respondents contended that a probationary officer has no right to confirmation, and that termination for unsuitability during probation is a matter of employer’s discretion.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court reiterated that under the RPwD Act, the state (and employers) must make provisions to ensure equality of opportunity and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities, and reservation of a minimum percentage of seats is mandatory.

• It held that failing to identify and reserve a minimum of 4% seats for persons with disabilities in the confirmation test constituted indirect discrimination and was contrary to the statutory mandate.

•While the employer pointed to probation status, the Court observed that merely being on probation does not absolve the employer of its duty under the RPwD Act to make inclusive arrangements and avoid discriminatory barriers.

•The Court found that the rules and circulars of SBI and the merged SBBJ, as applied to the petitioner, did not provide for the mandated reservation or consider disability-specific thresholds, and thus required interference.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Sections 33 & 34, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) – Obligation on quota for persons with disabilities and non-discrimination.

• Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to livelihood and equality of opportunity.

• Principles of substantive equality and prohibition of indirect discrimination in employment.

Decision:

The Court directed that the policy of confirmation test and termination letter be reviewed to ensure compliance with RPwD Act obligations. The petitioner’s termination was quashed and remitted for reconsideration in light of the reservation requirement for persons with disabilities.

Citation: 2025:DHC:7197/2021

Case: Munna Lal Yadav v. Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025

Writ Petition (C) No.: 7197 of 2021