Staff Selection Commission vs. Gurpreet Singh

Held

The High Court held that the CAT was justified in allowing the Original Application. The Court found that the SSC had not provided adequate information to candidates regarding medical eligibility, specifically concerning colour blindness for the Inspector (CGST) post. The SSC's stance that candidates must ascertain this from user departments was deemed impractical. The Court reasoned that in the absence of clear information from the SSC, the respondent could not be penalized for opting for a post for which he was later found medically unfit. The Court noted that the SSC's subsequent advertisements clarified this issue, supporting the respondent's claim of inadequate information. The Court rejected the SSC's reliance on clauses 11(C) and 13(II) of the advertisement, stating they would apply if the SSC had provided the necessary information and the candidate still opted for the post and was found unfit. The Court also dismissed the SSC's plea about potential lack of vacancies, stating that the wrong done to the respondent needed rectification by giving him the right of consideration as directed by the Tribunal. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's impugned judgment.

Facts

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had directed the SSC to consider the candidature of Gurpreet Singh (the respondent) for other posts based on his merit and preferences, and to grant consequential benefits if appointed. Gurpreet Singh applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2017, and secured sufficient marks to be allocated his first preference, Inspector in Central Excise (CGST), under the SC category. However, he was found medically unfit for this post due to 'Colour vision defect'. Despite re-medical examination confirming the defect, his candidature was cancelled. His grievance was that the SSC should have considered him for subsequent preferred posts after he was found medically unfit for the first choice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CAT was justified in directing the SSC to consider the respondent's candidature for other posts based on his merit and preferences, despite him being declared medically unfit for his first preferred post (Inspector, CGST)? Petitioner's (SSC) arguments: The SSC contended that the advertisement, specifically paragraph 11(A) and note 11(C), clearly stated that candidates must ensure they fulfill the requirements for their chosen category, and the onus was on the candidate to ascertain eligibility, including physical requirements like vision tests. It argued that its role ends upon forwarding dossiers to the user department and there is no policy for reallocation if a candidate is disqualified on medical grounds. It also relied on clause 13(II) stating that once a candidate is given their first available preference, they will not be considered for other preferences. Respondent's (Gurpreet Singh) arguments: The respondent argued that for the Inspector (CGST) post, the vacancy chart did not specify suitability or unsuitability for colour blind persons. He contended that the SSC had a duty to provide clear information regarding disqualifications, and its failure to do so prejudiced his informed choice. He further argued that the SSC's subsequent advertisements clarified this issue, indicating a corrective step taken by the SSC. He submitted that the Tribunal was justified in directing consideration for other posts.