Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Saurabh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7488 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2023
Tattoo - Medical Examination - The court allowed the petitioner to appear before a freshly constituted Medical Board for re-examination and potential selection for the post of Constable (Barber) in the BSF, after the petitioner removed the tattoo from his right forearm.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared unfit for the post of Constable (Tradesman) in the Border Security Force due to a tattoo on the anterior surface of the right forearm, which was deemed impermissible as per the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that apart from the tattoo, there were no other defects found in the petitioner during the medical examinations. The petitioner had fully removed the tattoo from his right forearm, and the court allowed him to appear before a freshly constituted Medical Board for re-examination and potential selection for the post.
Issues: The issue revolved around the permissibility of the tattoo on the right forearm in the context of the medical examination guidelines for recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's removal of the tattoo and the absence of any other defects found during the medical examinations. The court also considered the interest of justice in allowing the petitioner to have a fresh medical examination and potential selection for the post.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by giving the petitioner liberty to appear before a freshly constituted Medical Board, and if found fit, the respondents were directed to further process the selection of the petitioner for the post in question in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking following reliefs:
"a.) Quash/set aside the Rejection Slip dated 17/05/2023 declaring as illegal and arbitrary in eliminating the candidature of the petitioner in Medical examination due to Tattoo on anterior surface of right forearm (Saluting Arm).
b.) Direct the respondents to conduct a fresh Medical Board and medically examine the petitioner a fresh and if the petitioner is found fit, he may be considered and given appointment for the post of Constable (Barber) in the BSF with all consequential benefits."
2. The case of petitioner is that petitioner was found unfit in Detailed Medical Examination dated 17.05.2023 and thereafter, in Review Medical Examination dated 17.05.2023 for the Post of Constable (Tradesman) (Male & Female) in Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for the Year 2021-22, to which the petitioner applied for the Post of Constable (Water Carrier), on the ground that the petitioner has a tattoo on anterior surface right forearm (saluting arm) which is not permissible.
3. Notice issued.
4. Learned counsel for respondents accepts notice and has opposed the present petition by submitting that right arm is saluting hand and, therefore, this tattoo is not permissible as per the Office Memorandum dated 20.05.2015 issued by respondent No. 1/ Ministry of Home Affairs regarding revised uniform guidelines for recruitment medical examination.
5. On enquiry from the petitioner, this Court has been told that the petitioner has fully removed the tattoo from his right forearm, the photograph after removing the tattoo is Annexure P-4 to the present petition. This Court also finds from the Detailed Medical Examination dated 17.05.2023 and the Review Medical Examination dated 17.05.2023 that barring the said tattoo, there were no other defects found in the petitioner.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid position as well as in the interest of justice, we hereby dispose of the present petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to appear before the freshly constituted Medical Board of the respondents and in case, he is found fit by the said Medical Board, the respondents shall further process the selection of petitioner for the post in question in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition along with pending application stands disposed of.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of tattoos in the context of medical examinations for recruitment, and the court's consideration of the petitioner's removal ....
The court has the authority to direct a re-examination by a medical board in cases where the petitioner's fitness for a position is in question.
Uniform recruitment guidelines prohibit tattoos on the saluting arm, impacting a candidate's eligibility; however, the court allows a candidate to seek re-evaluation after tattoo removal.
Candidates must comply with tattoo removal regulations prior to recruitment to qualify for positions in disciplined forces.
Compliance with prescribed medical standards is essential for recruitment, yet remedial actions can allow individuals to meet requirements for fitness.
The presence of abraded lesions from tattoo removal, without evidence of interference with duties, cannot be a ground for declaring a candidate unfit for service in CAPF.
The court upheld the principle of fairness in administrative decision-making, allowing a candidate to rectify minor disqualifications while ensuring compliance with guidelines.
The principle of providing an opportunity for re-examination in cases of medical unfitness due to specific reasons, as established by previous court decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
