HARIRAM KRISHNA IYER Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE facts as narrated are as follows. THE petitioner had joined the services of the first respondent-Bank as a clerk on 21-4-1980. THE petitioner has produced credentials to indicate that he was a highly meritorious student. It is stated that while he was working at Jamakhandi Branch of the Bank, he had developed a form of severe eye allergy called Spring Catarrah. THE doctors had prescribed steroid drops. It is claimed that on account of prolonged use of that drug, there was a rise in intra-ocular pressure, resulting in an estrogenic medical case of steroid induced glaucoma, as a result, the petitioner was rendered almost blind. However, by timely surgery, about 60%of the overall vision was saved, in the result, he is blind to the extent of 40%. In that, the petitioner has completely lost vision in the left eye and the normal field of vision in the right eye has diminished. He is classified as a "one-eyed person" in the parlance adopted by the Bank. It is, however, claimed that there is no diminution of the performance of the petitioner or in his professional advancement. It is stated that in the year 1984, the petitioner has passed Part 1 of the CAIIB examination conducted by the Institute of Bankers. THE petitioner, however, is treated as a disabled person in terms of a Disability Certificate issued by the District Hospital, Belgaum. It is stated that the petitioner had applied in response to an advertisement issued by the Banking Services Recruitment Board to the post of Probationary Officers in the Bank of India. He had scored well both at the written test as well as the interview. He was however refused appointment on the ground that he has lost vision in the left eye.

(3.) IT is stated that the respondent-Bank published a notification dated 4-12-1999 setting in motion a promotion process to fill up 37 posts of Officers in the Junior Management, Grade Scale I by promotion. Pursuant to which, the petitioner had made a representation requesting the respondent-Bank to permit him to take the test as a candidate to whom the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') applied and for a consideration of his case for promotion. The Bank had not replied to the same. The petitioner therefore, approached the Chief Commissioner for disabilities under the Act. The respondent-Bank had contended that the petitioner had not participated in the promotion process in the year 1997 and that it proposes to hold a test for promotion shortly and that the petitioner would be permitted to appear for the test. The petitioner's representation was registered as Case No. 259 of 1999 and by an order dated 22-9-2000 directed the respondent-Bank to withdraw all provisions from its policies regarding promotion which are an impediment to career enhancement to employees with disabilities in general and blind employees in particular. The respondent-Bank was also called upon to modify its service rules to the extent that no employee on account of acquiring disability while in service is dispensed with or reduced in rank or denied promotion. The Bank was directed to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner and all other similarly situated employees of the Bank. The petitioner, therefore, sought for promotion with effect from 22-2-1996. The Bank having failed to do so, the present writ petition is filed.