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.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed for the following prayers :

(i) Quashing the finding of review Medical Examination Board dated 30.08.2016 as the members of the review medical examination Board belong to the branches of Medicine other than dermatology and, therefore, not competent to render opinion in respect of fitness of petitioner for the service;

(ii) Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join as constable GD in BSF on the basis of medical fitness certificate issued by Dr. Rajesh Sharma, Lecturer, Department of Dermatology, Government Medical College/SMGS, Hospital, Jammu; and,

(iii) Mandamus directing the respondents to constitute a fresh review medical examination board consisting of members from the department of Dermatology for fresh medical examination of the petitioner at the earliest.

2. In response to an Advertisement Notice dated 24.01.2015 issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable GD in Border Security Force ['BSF'] under OBC Category and cleared all the examinations. He was, thereafter, called for Medical Examination on 30.05.2016. However, during the course of medical examination, he was declared medically unfit as some tattoo marks were found present on his right and left arms. After the petitioner was declared medically unfit, he was informed that in case he intends to file an appeal against the finding of the medical examination declaring him medically unfit for the post, he shall have to apply for review medical examination after obtaining necessary medical certificate from any Civil Medical practitioner within a period of 15 days. Faced, thus, the petitioner got the tattoos removed and, accordingly, obtained a certificate dated 06.06.2016 from Dr. Rajesh Sharma, Lecturer Department of Dermatology. After obtaining the aforesaid certificate, the petitioner filed an appeal against the findings of medical examination dated 30.05.2016 annexing therewith the aforesaid medical certificate dated 06.06.2016 (supra). The appeal was considered by the Competent Authority and, accordingly, the petitioner was called for Review Medical Examination, however, he was again declared unfit on the ground that there were scar marks of size 06 cm on his right upper arm and 02 cms on dorsal side of his right hand.

3. The impugned action of the respondents has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that the tattoos found on the arms of the petitioner had no affect on the working of a Constable GD in BSF; that the tattoo marks were made from ink which were successfully removed; that the Doctors who examined the petitioner in the Review Medical Examination were not specialists in the field of Dermatology; that the Review Medical Board has not considered the certificate issued by the Dr. Rajesh Sharma, Lecturer Department of Dermatology, Government Medical College, SMGS Hospital, Jammu, an expert in the field.

4. On being put on notice, the respondents have filed their objections in which it is submitted that the certificate dated 06.06.2016 obtained by the petitioner from Civil Doctor is general in nature, as according to the said Doctor, the petitioner may be fit to serve in civil Department because of nature of duties to be performed in civil job which are entirely different from the nature of duties of the Armed Forces. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the tattoos marks on right forearm, right upper arm and on dorsal side of right hand were found to be more than the prescribed limit. Moreso, when the right arm is a saluting arm. As per the policy on the subject, tattoos on the right forearm is not permissible and therefore the petitioner was found unfit for the post in question. It is further submitted that the review medical examination of the petitioner was carried out by a duly constituted Review Medical Board and during the aforesaid medical examination the petitioner was again found medically unfit. It is submitted that as per the f