Mukesh Kumar Meena vs. Staff Selection Commission (Hqrs)

Held

The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra, citing previous judgments of its Coordinate Bench in SSC and Another v. Laxmi Narayan and Staff Selection Commission v. Gurpreet Singh. In these cases, it was held that if a candidate is found ineligible 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 for those posts. The Court reasoned that the SSC should have provided clear information regarding medical disqualifications in its advertisement to enable candidates to make informed choices. In the absence of such information, a candidate should not be penalized for being disqualified on medical grounds for a post they opted for, especially if they possess the merit for subsequent preferences. Therefore, the Court directed the SSC to consider the petitioner's candidature for other posts in other departments, in order of his preference, where 'Vitiligo' is not a disqualification, subject to his merit. The SSC was directed to comply with this order within 12 weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Meena, 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) and was declared unfit due to 'Vitiligo'. The petitioner's grievance was that his nomination was for civil posts, and thus he should have been subjected to medical standards for civil posts, not Army standards. He contended that 'Vitiligo' is not a disqualification for other departments he had opted for, where his merit would qualify him. The SSC argued that the requisition was from the Directorate General Border Roads, justifying the Army standards. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application, finding the SSC's action justified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) was justified in subjecting the petitioner to medical examination as per Army Standards for the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) when his selection was for civil posts, and if not, whether his candidature should be considered for other departments where 'Vitiligo' is not a disqualification? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the recruitment process and medical standards applicable to civil posts versus GREF). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that since he was selected for civil posts, he should have been subjected to civil medical standards. Upon being found unfit by GREF due to 'Vitiligo', the SSC should have forwarded his dossier to other departments where 'Vitiligo' is not a disqualification, provided he met the merit criteria for those posts. He relied on SSC and Another v. Laxmi Narayan and Staff Selection Commission v. Gurpreet Singh. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (SSC) argued that the requisition for recruitment was received from the Directorate General Border Roads, under which GREF operates, thus justifying the medical examination as per Army Standards. The respondent also contended that it was too late for the petitioner to approach the court seeking consideration in other departments.