BANK OF BARODA Vs. SUSMITA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, petitioner/Bank of Baroda seeks direction thereby setting aside order dated 24.10.2017 passed in case no. 7776/1024/2017 by the learned Chief Commissioner for person with Disabilities, Delhi.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner issued an advertisement for the year 2014-2015 (13th Batch) for candidates seeking admission to one year Post Graduate Diploma in Banking and Finance (PGDBF), through Baroda Manipal School of Banking (BMSB), and subsequently, appointment in the Bank's Service as Probationary Officer in JMG/S-I cadre on successful completion of the said diploma and after fulfilment other eligibility criteria. The aforesaid appointment was subject to completion of course within one year from the date of admission (nine months classroom training and three months internship) after regular period of twelve months and by clearing all the back-papers, if any, within a maximum period of three months or one additional attempt. Accordingly, the respondent applied online for the aforesaid diploma course under the physically handicapped category and was declared successful by the petitioner bank. The respondent accepted the offer of admission on the terms and conditions containing therein. However, the respondent failed to complete her diploma course within the stipulated time i.e. in normal course a candidate is required to complete by October, 2015. In order to clear backlog papers, the candidates should have cleared all the papers latest by January, 2016. The respondent completed her course much beyond the permissible three months time that too after several attempts in September, 2016. Since the respondent could not complete her course, therefore, she was not eligible to be appointed as Probationary Officer with the petitioner. The respondent made representation to the Board of Directors and the same was rejected. At last the respondent filed a complaint under Section 75(1) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The petitioner bank vide its reply dated 10/13.07.2017 stated that the respondent is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the appointment as Probationary Officer under the prescribed rules and regulations. But she was trying to gain sympathy by raising the same issue again and again by making representations before the various authorities. However, vide order dated 24.10.2017, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities despite possession of aforesaid facts allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner bank to provide the employment to the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned Chief Commissioner failed to appreciate that though the respondent completed the diploma course, however, she could not complete the same within stipulated time making herself ineligible for appointment. If the norms prescribed are relaxed for accommodating the respondent in the petitioner's bank, the same will not only deprive the other deserving candidates in the handicapped category but will also open the door for all those candidates who were disqualified in past due to non completion of the diploma course within the stipulated time. The respondent who got the admission to the 13th batch of said diploma course for the year 2014-15 was required to complete the said tri-semester PGDBF within nine months with a further grace period of maximum three months or one additional attempt whichever is earlier to clear all the backlog to enable her to be eligible for appointment.