Form No. J.(2)

Item No. DL/4 ARPAN – A.R. (CT)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

W.P.A. NO. 29359 OF 2025 JHANTU SARKAR Vs.

THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA For the Petitioner : Ms. Tanuka Basu, Adv.

Ms. Shamayem Fasih, Adv.

Mr. Tanmoy Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. Akash Das, Adv.

For the Union of India : Mr. Samarjit Roy Chaudhury, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Dipika Sarkar, Adv.

Ms. Swarnwarshi Poddar, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 21.01.2026 Judgment On : 21.01.2026 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:

1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Matter is heard extensively in presence of the learned advocates representing the petitioner and the Union of India.

3. Petitioner participated in the selection process for being appointed as Constable (G.D.) under Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). In connection with the said selection process, petitioner appeared for detailed medical examination on 29^th November, 2025 and petitioner was declared unfit since on right forearm of the petitioner presence of tattoo was found. Petitioner removed the said tattoo by undergoing therapy on 1^st December, 2025 and thereafter participated in review medical examination on 4^th December, 2025.

4. In review medical examination, Medical Experts opined that the petitioner was not fit due to tattoo and superficial burn mark was found to be present on right forearm of the petitioner. Questioning said review medical report dated 4^th December, 2025, present writ petition is filed with a prayer for direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to consider appointment of the petitioner for the post of Constable (G.D.) under CAPFs.

5. In support of such contentions raised in this writ petition, reliance is placed on an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19^th July, 2019 passed on Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s).444 of 2019 (Dharmvir Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) and a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5162 (Staff Selection Commission and Others vs.

Deepak Yadav)

6. Learned advocate representing the Union of India has opposed this writ petition and has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 2^nd January, 2026 passed on a writ petition being WPA 28705 of 2025 (Rahul Bari vs. Union of India & Ors.)

7. In addition thereto, it is also submitted on behalf of the Union of India that admittedly petitioner had tattoo on the date of petitioner’s participation in the detailed medical examination on 29^th November, 2025. Therefore, by subsequent removal of tattoo, situation ought not to be improved thereby declaring the petitioner fit for considering his appointment for the post of Constable (G.D.) under CAPFs, on his participation in review medical examination which was conducted on

4^th December, 2025.

8. In Deepak Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court was considering the candidate for selection in the post of Constable in Delhi Police for the year 2023 where Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles as revised in May, 2015 are not applicable. Moreover, from paragraph 12 of the judgement, it appears that first medical board was held on 20^th January, 2024 and thereafter review medical board was held on 22^nd January, 2024 and the candidate prior to his participation in first medical board by undergoing surgery removed tattoo. It is also recorded in paragraph 13 of the judgement that the Hon’ble Division Bench physically saw the right forearm of the candidate, who was present in Court, and it was found that tattoo was not visible.

9. Here in the present case, different set of revised medical guidelines of May, 2015 are applicable for appointment in the post of Constable (G.D.) under CAPFs and the fact is petitioner participated in detailed medical examination on 29^th November, 2025 with tattoo and thereafter, rem