Reservation Does Not Extend to Confirmation: Reasoned Duty to Consider Relaxed Standards and Accommodation for PwBDs; CCPwD Recommendations Are Quasi-Binding

Introduction

In Munna Lal Yadav v. Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities & Ors., 2025 DHC 9519-DB (decided on 31 October 2025), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (Navin Chawla, J. and Madhu Jain, J.) addressed a crucial interface between employment confirmation processes in public sector banks and the substantive equality mandate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The petitioner, a 100% visually impaired OBC candidate, was selected and appointed as an Assistant Manager (JMGS-I) in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ), later merged into State Bank of India (SBI). He failed twice in the probationary confirmation test and was terminated under Rule 16 of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992. He challenged (i) the legality and constitutionality of Rule 16; (ii) the absence of reservation and additional relaxation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) in confirmation; (iii) his termination; and (iv) the non-implementation of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) recommendations that had urged revocation of termination, re-examination, and enhanced accommodations.

The key issues included:

• Whether SBBJ/SBI could insist on a confirmation test and terminate a probationer for failing it.
• Whether reservation under Section 34 of the RPwD Act extends to confirmation tests or whether different standards must be applied to PwBDs at confirmation.
• What is the legal effect of CCPwD recommendations under Sections 75–76 of the RPwD Act.
• What minimum “reasonable accommodation” must be made for PwBDs at confirmation stage.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following holdings and directions:

• Legality of confirmation test: Valid. SBBJ Regulation 16, the appointment letter (24.06.2015), and subsequent circulars permitted a confirmation/screening test, and following merger, SBI’s Rule 16 applied (paras 33–41).
• No reservation at confirmation stage: Section 34 RPwD Act reserves “vacancies in the cadre strength” at recruitment; the Act does not mandate reservation in confirmation tests (para 52). The Supreme Court’s decision in Suman Mondal (19.02.2025) confirms that confirmation is not part of the selection process and relaxations attached to recruitment cannot be invoked at confirmation (para 53).
• Reasonable accommodation and relaxed standards: SBI already applied a relaxed cut-off for PwD candidates (45% vs 50%), provided extra time and scribe. However, drawing on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 INSC 300, the Court emphasized the RPwD Act’s quasi-constitutional stature and the permissibility of relaxation where adequate PwBD representation would otherwise fail (paras 55–57). It called upon SBI to consider further relaxation or reasonable accommodation at the confirmation stage, consistent with job-essential requirements, and decide within four weeks (paras 57, 65).
• CCPwD recommendations: Recommendations are generally to be followed; an authority can depart only by giving valid, reasoned non-acceptance within three months (Sections 75–76; Mukesh Kumar v. NPTI, 2025:DHC:2214-DB) (paras 61–64). SBI had conveyed reasons for non-acceptance.
• Relief: The constitutional challenge to Rule 16 and demand for reservation in confirmation were rejected. However, SBI must consider additional relaxation/accommodation and either provide reasons for refusal or grant another attempt under the modified standard/mode, with a decision due within four weeks (para 65). No costs.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Suman Mondal v. SBI (SLP(C) No. 17979/2023, decided 19.02.2025) (para 53): The Supreme Court held that selection ends with the select list/appointment; relaxations tethered to recruitment cannot be claimed thereafter. Confirmation is not part of selection. The Delhi High Court applied this to hold that Section 34 reservation does not carry forward to confirmation tests and rejected the petitioner’s plea for quota at confirmation.
• Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 INSC 300 (paras 55, 63): The Supreme Court elevated the RPwD Act to a “super-statute” with quasi-constitutional status; recognized indirect discrimination; mandated separate cut-offs and permissible relaxations for PwD/PwBD where warranted; and stressed parity of PwD with other vertical categories for relaxation. The Delhi High Court drew on these principles to “call upon” SBI to consider further relaxation/accommodation at confirmation where representation and substantive equality might otherwise be undermined.
• Veerpal Kaur v. SBI, 2024:DHC:5363 (para 24): Applied to support that post-merger probationers become governed by SBI Rules, including confirmation tests.
• Neetu Devi Singh v. High Court of Allahabad, 2008 SCC OnLine All 110 (paras 26, 49.1 in SC extract): Authorities may prescribe minimum qualifying marks; those failing to meet the benchmark cannot claim further consideration. Cited to validate fixed cut-offs while acknowledging that relaxations can be policy-driven.
• Mukesh Kumar v. National Power Training Institute, 2025:DHC:2214-DB (paras 63–64): Clarified that CCPwD recommendations generally bind unless valid reasons for non-acceptance are conveyed within three months to the CCPwD and the aggrieved person. The High Court adopted this framework to assess SBI’s response.
• Older jurisprudence cited by parties (National Federation of the Blind; Rajeev Kumar Gupta; Siddaraju; Leesamma Joseph; UPPCL v. Ayodhya Prasad; E.P. Royappa; Olga Tellis; Somesh Thapliyal; Anamol Bhandari; Aryan Raj; Tej Prakash Pathak; A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra; Rakhi Ray): These judgments supplied broader principles on reservation, equality, and procedural fairness. The Court ultimately tethered its ratio to the more recent apex court authority in Suman Mondal for the selection-confirmation distinction and to the 2025 “Judicial Services” ruling for the normative weight of the RPwD Act and the permissibility of relaxed standards and accommodations for PwD.

Legal Reasoning

1) Confirmation test: legality and applicability

The Court harmonized SBBJ Regulation 16 with the appointment letter and subsequent organizational changes (paras 33–41). Regulation 16.1 conditioned confirmation on the competent authority’s satisfaction as to the officer’s training and in-service training; a confirmation test was a legitimate tool to assess this (paras 33–34). The appointment letter (24.06.2015) expressly required passing a confirmation test, and the SBBJ circular of 21.07.2016 aligned its policy with SBI’s screening test requirement (paras 35, 37). Upon merger with SBI, and the petitioner’s deemed absorption (option letter dated 30.03.2017), SBI Rules including Rule 16 governed (paras 38–40). Having twice attempted the test, the petitioner was also estopped from challenging its legality (para 40).

2) No reservation at confirmation; but accommodation and relaxation remain live duties

The Court read Section 34 of the RPwD Act textually: it mandates not less than 4% reservation of “vacancies in the cadre strength” in each group of posts—i.e., a recruitment-stage device (para 51). There is no statutory mandate to extend horizontal reservation to confirmation examinations, which occur post-appointment (paras 52–54). Guided by Suman Mondal, confirmation is not part of the “selection process” and therefore recruitment relaxations cannot be claimed at this later stage (para 53).

Importantly, the Court did not treat the matter as closed on substantive equality. It robustly synthesized Sections 3 and 20 of the RPwD Act—non-discrimination, prohibition on disability-based discrimination, and the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation and conducive environments (paras 43–49). Citing the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision recognizing the RPwD Act as a “super-statute” and endorsing separate cut-offs/relaxations where warranted (paras 55, 62, 63.3 of the SC extract), as well as DoPT OMs dated 15.01.2018 and 17.05.2022 on relaxation of standards where sufficient PwBDs are not available (paras 56), the Court “called upon” SBI to consider:

• Further relaxation of confirmation standards for PwBDs, and/or
• Reasonable accommodation in the manner/mode of the confirmation test,

such that the RPwD Act’s mandate is not defeated and adequate representation of PwDs in service is maintained, while preserving basic job requirements (paras 57, 65). This is a nuanced equilibrium: no quota at confirmation, but a strong expectation of enhanced accommodation/relaxation where feasible and justified by representational needs and substantive equality.

3) The effect of CCPwD recommendations

Sections 75–76 of the RPwD Act create a structured recommendatory regime: the CCPwD may recommend corrective action where deprivation of rights is found; authorities must act and report within three months, and if rejecting, must give reasons to both the CCPwD and the aggrieved person (paras 61–62). Following Mukesh Kumar (2025 DHC DB), the Court held such recommendations are generally to be followed; departure is permissible only with valid, reasoned non-acceptance (paras 63–64). SBI’s reasoned rejection satisfied the statutory framework in this case (paras 60, 64).

4) Relief and remedial architecture

The Court declined to strike down Rule 16 or to create a reservation at confirmation. However, it crafted a process remedy: SBI must, within four weeks, consider whether further relaxation or reasonable accommodation is warranted for PwBDs at confirmation. If refused, reasons must be supplied; if accepted, the petitioner must be given another chance under the modified standards/mode (para 65).

Impact and Implications

A) For public sector banks and government establishments

• Confirmation ≠ selection: No reservation quota under Section 34 at confirmation. Policies should reflect this to avoid legal misapprehensions.
• Substantive equality remains central: Even without quota, employers must not treat confirmation as a “neutral” metric if doing so results in indirect discrimination or undermines representation. The duty of reasonable accommodation persists through confirmation and beyond (Sections 3 and 20).
• Consider relaxation where warranted: If relaxed standards and accommodations still leave insufficient confirmed PwBDs, departments should consider further relaxation consistent with basic job requirements and DoPT OMs (15.01.2018; 17.05.2022). Document the assessment and rationale.
• Design accessible assessments: Move beyond scribe/extra time. Consider accessible formats (Braille, screen-reader compatible digital tests), competency-oriented evaluations, adaptive assessment methods, and structured training/mentorship as recommended by CCPwD (para 9).
• CCPwD engagement: Treat CCPwD recommendations as quasi-binding—either implement or issue a detailed, reasoned rejection within three months, copying the aggrieved employee.
• Equal Opportunity Policy (Section 21): Ensure a live, published policy explaining measures for accommodation at all career stages, including confirmation.

B) For PwBD employees and advocates

• Clarity on the limits of reservation: Section 34 does not extend to confirmation tests; relief must be sought via reasonable accommodation and relaxation standards—not quota.
• Rights to accommodation persist: The RPwD Act’s protections are not exhausted post-selection. Employees can request individualized accommodations and participate in processes reviewing relaxation consistent with representational aims and job essentials.
• Use the CCPwD mechanism: If denied, seek CCPwD intervention; authorities must respond within three months with reasons if rejecting recommendations.
• Renewed opportunity possible: Where an employer adopts relaxed standards/modes following judicial “call upon” or policy recalibration, employees may be entitled to a fresh attempt under the modified arrangements (para 65).

C) For policymakers and HR/legal departments

• Audit confirmation outcomes by disability category to detect potential indirect discrimination.
• Standardize reasonable accommodations and record individualized adjustments provided.
• Institute a formal relaxation-consideration protocol aligned with DoPT OMs when representation targets are at risk.
• Train exam and HR panels on disability-inclusive assessment design and on the “super-statute” status of the RPwD Act, per the Supreme Court’s 2025 pronouncement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Confirmation vs. Selection: Selection culminates with creation of the select list and appointment. Confirmation occurs post-appointment to assess suitability/probation completion. Reservation under Section 34 targets selection (vacancies in cadre strength), not post-appointment confirmation.
• PwD vs. PwBD: PwD is a general term for persons with disabilities. PwBD (Person with Benchmark Disability) is a statutory subset—40% or more of a specified disability (Section 2(r)). The Supreme Court (2025) clarified there should be no distinction in rights and entitlements between PwD and PwBD for the purposes addressed.
• Horizontal Reservation: Cuts across all vertical categories (General, SC, ST, OBC). PwBDs may belong to any vertical category but compete within a cross-cut quota at recruitment.
• Reasonable Accommodation (Section 2(y)): Necessary and appropriate modifications/adjustments, without disproportionate burden on the employer, to ensure equal enjoyment/exercise of rights by persons with disabilities. It is a positive obligation throughout employment, including confirmation.
• Indirect Discrimination: Neutral rules that disproportionately disadvantage persons with disabilities can be unlawful unless they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Substantive equality sometimes requires different treatment of unequals to achieve fair outcomes.
• CCPwD Recommendations: Under Sections 75–76 RPwD Act, recommendations are generally to be followed; authorities can deviate only with valid reasons communicated within three months to the CCPwD and to the aggrieved person.
• DoPT OMs (15.01.2018; 17.05.2022): Permit relaxation of suitability standards where sufficient PwBD candidates are not available, provided minimum essential requirements are met and no relaxation of disability certification criteria is made. Although framed for recruitment and departmental examinations, the Court read their spirit into confirmation contexts where representation and equality goals are at stake.

Conclusion

Munna Lal Yadav marks a careful calibration of disability rights and employment standards at the confirmation stage. The Delhi High Court firmly held that Section 34 reservation does not travel to confirmation tests, aligning with the Supreme Court’s view that confirmation is not part of selection. Yet, the Court equally reaffirmed the RPwD Act’s quasi-constitutional status and embedded obligations of reasonable accommodation and substantive equality: employers must conscientiously consider relaxed standards and accessible modes for PwBDs at confirmation where representation and fair participation would otherwise be impaired.

On institutional design, the judgment clarifies that CCPwD recommendations, though formally “recommendatory,” are functionally quasi-binding: they must be implemented or expressly rejected with cogent reasons within three months. On remedies, the Court eschewed immediate reinstatement or constitutional invalidation of SBI’s Rule 16, but fashioned a process-based relief directing SBI to decide, with reasons, on additional relaxation and reasonable accommodation—and to extend a renewed opportunity if adopted.

The key takeaway is twofold. First, reservation ends at recruitment; confirmation is governed by standards of suitability. Second, equality does not end at recruitment; it continues as a living obligation to adjust systems so that disability does not become a barrier to continued employment where essential competencies can be reasonably demonstrated. Public sector employers should respond by auditing confirmation outcomes for PwBDs, embedding robust accommodation protocols, and ensuring transparent, reasoned decision-making consistent with the RPwD Act’s super-statute stature and the Court’s direction for considered relaxation where warranted.