Back
RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA
Sonam Lodhi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER
1. Assailing the order dated 25.9.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.17320 of 2020, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission inviting online applications for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018 published on 21.7.2018, the petitioner applied for the same. Admission card was issued to her bearing roll No.6015001989. She appeared in the examination and qualified the same. She has obtained 87.31 marks in the examination. She appeared for physical examination. She qualified the physical examination also. Thereafter, she was required to appear before Medical Board for her medical examination. She appeared before the Medical Examination Board and was declared unfit. The reason assigned was that she was having a tattoo on her right forearm.
3. It is her case that the tattoo mark was engraved in her childhood as a traditional tattoo mark in accordance with a religious ritual. She represented to the authorities and was required to get a medical fitness certif
Candidates must comply with tattoo removal regulations prior to recruitment to qualify for positions in disciplined forces.
The existence of a tattoo scar does not constitute medical unfitness unless it violates specific guidelines regarding size and location.
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 presence of a tattoo on the right arm violated the eligibility criteria stipulated in the advertisement, justifying the rejection of the petitioner's candidature.
Compliance with prescribed medical standards is essential for recruitment, yet remedial actions can allow individuals to meet requirements for fitness.
Recruitment disqualification based on tattoo policy is valid if it maintains a rational relationship to role responsibilities.
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.
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
