Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9065

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Nupur Bhati, J
Kishan Chand – Appellant
Versus
Regional Manager, State Bank of India – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13082/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.S. Raghav, Vishivas Saini, Mananjay Singh Rathore, Kriti Rathore, Chetan Khandel
For the Respondents: Suruchi Kasliwal, Vikram Singh, Annika Anna

The denial of, or reversion from, a promotion based on medical grounds is arbitrary and violates the right to livelihood if the employer fails to establish a nexus between the medical condition and the functional requirements of the post, or ignores mandatory principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14, 21 - Promotion - Medical fitness - Reversion from promotional post on grounds of Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD) - Petitioner rendered satisfactory service for over a decade - Respondents failed to establish nexus between medical condition and functional requirement of post - Impugned action taken without affording opportunity of hearing - Petitioner's right to work and livelihood violated - Arbitrary action - Held, employer’s decision to declare petitioner unfit without reasoned medical opinion or adherence to natural justice is unsustainable. (Paras 19, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a bank employee, was provisionally promoted to the clerical cadre after passing a written test and medical examination. Following one month of satisfactory service in the new post, the respondent bank reverted him to the subordinate cadre, citing an ex-parte medical report from the Corporate Centre classifying him as unfit due to PKD, despite prior medical certificates from specialists confirming his fitness for the job.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to provide a reasoned medical opinion or comply with their own internal circulars requiring specialist consultation, and acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by not disclosing adverse material to the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the unilateral reversion of the petitioner based on an unreasoned medical report, without providing a hearing, violates constitutional and administrative principles.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee cannot be deprived of promotion based on a medical condition unless it is demonstrably proven that such a condition impairs their ability to perform the duties of the post. Administrative action must be reasoned, follow the principles of natural justice, and should not be based on archaic medical standards that exclude individuals capable of normal functioning.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and factual history of the promotion controversy. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's argument regarding lack of procedural fairness and expert medical evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. respondent's justification based on circulars, internal medical policy, and institutional discretion. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court’s evaluation of medical consistency, existing service record, and circular compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. constitutional protection of livelihood and necessity of rational linkage between medical criteria and job functions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. requirement to communicate medical reports as a prerequisite for the right to appeal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

Order

27/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may call for the entire record concerning the case and after examining the same, by issuing writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof;

And set aside the letter no. HR/REC/dated 17.05.2022 (Annex.8) issued by the respondents and further respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to- join the promotional post which is clerical cadre with all consequential benefits.

Any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be pleased to quash and set aside.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Part Time Sweeper (Safai Karamchari) in the State Bank of Patiala, Palwal Branch vide appointment letter dated 04.08.2010 in the OBC category. Upon successful completion of his probation period of six months on 22.02.2011, he was confirmed as PTS (Part Time Sweeper) on ½ scale wages w.e.f. 23.02.2011. By virtue of his satisfactory and unblemished service record, vide letter dated 11.05.2015, the petitioner's pay was fixed from 3/4th scale to full scale wages. In the year 2016, the petitioner was transferred to the State Bank of Patiala, Raja Park Branch, Jaipur. Subsequently, in the year 2017, the State Bank of Patiala was merged with the State Bank of India and accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed into the services of the respondent-Bank and transferred to the SBI Narheda Branch, Kotputli, Jaipur. After rendering satisfactory service of nine years, the respondent Bank, on the basis of seniority channel, selected the petitioner and called him for a written test held on 22.01.2022 for promotion to the post of clerical cadre (Grahak Mitra Channel). The petitioner was declared successful in the said examination, his name appearing at Serial No. 63 in the final result list. Thereafter, the respondent Bank obtained a fresh medical report of the petitioner from Government BDM Medical Hospital, Kotputli, and as per the said report, there was no anomaly and the petitioner was found fit for promotion. The petitioner was thereupon provisionally promoted to the clerical cadre w.e.f. 21.03.2022 and, vide letter dated 18.04.2022, his services were surrendered to Region-I, AO-1, Jaipur, and he was ultimately posted at Kotputli Branch (11392), Jaipur, joining thereat on 20.04.2022. However, after the petitioner had rendered satisfactory service in his new assignment for a period of approximately one month, the Deputy General Manager & CDO of LHO Jaipur, vide the impugned letter No. HR/REC/475 dated 17.05.2022 (Annex.8), reverted the petitioner from clerical cadre to subordinate cadre on the ground that the petitioner was suffering from Polycystic Kidney Disease (hereinafter referred to as "PKD"), which was described as a progressi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9065

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)Nupur Bhati, JKishan Chand – AppellantVersusRegional Manager, State Bank of India – RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13082/2022

The denial of, or reversion from, a promotion based on medical grounds is arbitrary and violates the right to livelihood if the employer fails to establish a nexus between the medical condition and the functional requirements of the post, or ignores mandatory principles of natural justice.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Nupur Bhati, J
Kishan Chand – Appellant
Versus
Regional Manager, State Bank of India – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13082/2022