The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has directed the Union Bank of India to appoint a candidate suffering from schizophrenia as an IT Officer, stating that his mental condition qualifies as a permanent disability. The petitioner, Arpit Kumar Bhana, had initially been selected for the post through the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) recruitment process, but his offer was withdrawn citing his disability as temporary.
Arpit had applied for the IT Officer (Scale-I) post in October 2022 and successfully cleared the preliminary and main exams, followed by an interview. He was issued a provisional offer on 17 May 2023. However, during the document verification process, the Bank required a disability certificate confirming that his condition was permanent. Though Arpit submitted certificates from the Mandsaur Medical Board showing 40% mental illness due to schizophrenia, the Bank rejected his appointment on the basis that the certificate stated the disability was valid for five years, and thus “temporary.”
Challenging this decision, Arpit filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. His counsel argued that disability certificates are often issued with a validity period but that doesn’t automatically make the condition temporary. The advertisement itself required a minimum 40% disability, with no clause stating that it must be permanent.
The Bank's counsel maintained that since the certificate was not permanent and didn't mention whether the condition was progressive or non-progressive, it couldn’t be treated as permanent. The Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities had also supported this view.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar, presiding over the case, noted:
“In the present case, the petitioner is suffering from schizophrenia and it is also not mentioned that his condition is likely to improve… the Court is of the considered opinion that the disability, although stated as temporary and valid for five years, cannot be treated as temporary.”
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petition Alleging Exorbitant Fees Paid to Advocate General
The judge also referred to the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Bhavya Nain vs. High Court of Delhi, where the petitioner had a mental illness (Bipolar Disorder) marked as likely to improve but was still granted reservation benefits.
Highlighting the distinction, the Court stated:
“Unlike the case of Bhavya Nain, here the petitioner’s condition is not mentioned as likely to improve. Hence, the petitioner stands on a better footing.”
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Urges State to Speed Up Arbitration Tribunal Appointments Amid Long Delays
As a result, the Court quashed the Bank’s rejection order dated 18 August 2023. It directed the Union Bank of India to issue Arpit’s appointment letter, effective from the same date, and extend all consequential benefits except monetary compensation.
The petition was thereby allowed.
Case Title: Arpit Kumar Bhana Versus Union Bank Of India And Others, Writ Petition No. 22228 Of 2023
