RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. A.K. NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE CHALLENGE: Reserve Bank of India (hereafter 'RBI', for short) and the Union of India (hereafter 'GoI' for short) are in appeal, by special leave, mounting challenge to the judgment and order dtd. 16/6/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on Writ Petition No.2753 of 2006 presented before it by the common first respondent (hereafter 'Mr. Nair', for short). FACTS:

(2.) The facts leading to these appeals reflect the grim struggle of Mr. Nair, a person having 'Post-Polio Paralysis of Limbs' with 50% disability to secure promotion to the post of Assistant Manager in the RBI by claiming benefit envisaged by the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereafter 'the PwD Act, 1995') as well as various office memoranda issued from time to time by the Department of Personnel and Training (hereafter 'DoPT', for short) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, GoI, and circulars issued by the RBI.

(3.) Mr. Nair, joined the services of the RBI, on 27/9/1990 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 3/7/2004 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 19/10/2004. 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 dtd. 18/12/2004 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 dtd. 25/5/2005, 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 dtd. 5/7/2000 (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 dtd. 19/10/2004 (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.