Anil Kumar vs. Staff Selection Commission, Through Its Chairman, New Delhi

Held

The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra, citing two previous judgments of coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court. In SSC and Another v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that if a candidate is not eligible for a particular post based on physical standards, their case must necessarily be considered for other posts according to their preferences, provided they fall within the merit list for those posts. Similarly, in Staff Selection Commission v. Gurpreet Singh, the Court emphasized that candidates should not be penalized for disqualifications arising from a lack of relevant information from the SSC regarding medical suitability for different posts. The Court found these judgments equally applicable to the present case. Therefore, the Court directed the SSC to consider the petitioner's candidature, taking into account his merit and suitability for other posts in other departments, in the order of his preference, where 'Artificial Dentures and Dental Caries' is not a disqualification. The SSC was directed to comply with this order within 12 weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, participated in the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level Exam-2013 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). He was recommended for appointment and nominated to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Subsequently, he underwent medical examinations by the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) for the Border Roads Organisation (BRO). He was declared unfit in February 2015 due to 'Artificial Dentures and Dental Caries'. The petitioner's grievance was that his nomination to BRO was incorrect as his selection was for civil posts, and he should have been subjected to medical standards for civil posts. The respondent (SSC) contended that the requisition was from the Directorate General Border Roads, and the medical examination was as per Army standards, thus justified. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the petitioner's Original Application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) was obligated to consider the petitioner for other posts based on his merit and preferences, even after he was declared medically unfit for the post for which he was initially nominated, specifically concerning the disqualification of 'Artificial Dentures and Dental Caries' (turning on the principles of fair consideration and candidate preferences). The petitioner argued that despite being found unfit by GREF for 'Artificial Dentures and Dental Caries', the SSC should have forwarded his case to other departments where this condition is not a disqualification. He contended that he secured 128.50 marks in the OBC category and could have been considered for departments like the Ministry of Urban Development or Armed Forces Headquarter, where the cut-off marks were lower. He relied on previous judgments of the Delhi High Court in SSC and Another v. Laxmi Narayan and Staff Selection Commission v. Gurpreet Singh, which held that candidates found medically unfit for one post must be considered for other preferred posts if they meet the merit and suitability criteria. The respondent (SSC) argued that it was too late for the petitioner to approach the court seeking consideration for other departments based on his preferences.