P&H High Court Rebukes RBI's 'Pedantic Approach' In Denying Appointment Letter To PwD Candidate Over Her Inability To Give Biometric Thumb Impression

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has pulled up the Reserve Bank of India for its 'pedantic approach' in not issuing an appointment letter to a candidate with a disability as she couldn't give her thumb impression on biometrics because of the disability condition. 

Though the Candidate had verified her identity physically and qualified for the exam for a post in the Bank, she was denied the issuance of an appointment letter because verification could not be completed on biometrics.

Calling the approach of the bank, mechanical and harsh, Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "the respondent is denying benefit of appointment on the sole ground that respondent is unable to capture Biometric data i.e. thumb impression of the petitioner. The approach of the respondents seems to be pedantic, mechanical as well as harsh. The respondents on the one hand reserved 22 seats for PwD category candidates which included 8 seats for PwD (OH) candidates and on the other hand, the petitioner has been denied substantial benefit on the sole ground that respondent is unable to capture her Biometric data."

While noting that the respondent is not controverting the fact that the petitioner 4 times had appeared before the respondent and she had given her thumb impression on a piece of paper, the Court said, “the intent and purport of obtaining thumb impression through electronic mode is to ascertain the identity of the candidate and confirm his/her genuineness.”

If the things are verified by physical form, it seems to be highly pedantic and unreasonable on the part of the respondent to deny benefit on the sole ground that they are unable to capture thumb impression through electronic mode, added the Court.

The Court was seized of a writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking direction to respondents to issue appointment letter for the post of Office Attendant under the PwD (OH) category.

Facts In Brief

An advertisement was issued by RBI to invite applications for 526 posts of Office Attendant in various offices of the Bank. In the advertisement, 8 seats were earmarked for PwD (OH) category candidates. The petitioner applied under PwD (OH) category with respect to seat at Chandigarh/Shimla.

The petitioner appeared in the exam, however, her Biometric data could not be obtained because of her physical condition. There was physical verification of the admit card and other documents of the petitioner and she was permitted to participate in the exam.

The petitioner cracked the exam, however, she was not issued an appointment letter because despite being present on 4 occasions, she failed to give Biometric data due to her physical disability.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is suffering from 50% right arm hemiparesis and because of said disability, the petitioner cannot give her thumb impression through a Biometric machine, however, she had given her thumb impression on a piece of paper.

Considering the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner has cleared the exam and verified her identity physically “and there is no doubt about the identity of the petitioner.”

The sole ground for denying the benefit of appointment is that “the respondent is unable to capture Biometric data i.e. thumb impression of the petitioner,” noted the Court.

Justice Bansal opined that if the things are verified by physical form, it seems to be highly pedantic and unreasonable on the part of the respondent to deny benefit on the sole ground that they are unable to capture thumb impression through electronic mode.

It was not a case of the respondent that the petitioner was not coming forward or she was not ready to give her thumb impression. If through electronic mode, the respondents are unable to capture a thumb impression of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied substantial benefit, said the Court.

Adding that, the law does not require anything to be done which is humanly impossible, the court said, "The machines are meant to aid and assist the human beings and not to supplant their mind and active involvement."

The Court also pointed out that the act of the respondent is further contrary to the intent and purport of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

In the light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and directed the respondents to issue an appointment letter within 4 weeks.

 Appearance: Rakshit Gupta, Advocate with Brij Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Deepak Suri, Advocate for the respondents.

Case Title: Sakshi Babbar v. RBI & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 281

Click here to read/download the order