Candidates seeking appointment in police forces should not be summarily rejected for tattoo marks if they have undergone removal treatment; instead, their functional fitness should be assessed by a medical board including a dermatologist.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

“A. Call for records of the case:

B. Pass an order setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 issued by Respondents cancelling the candidature of the Applicant for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police under Compassionate Grounds;

C. Pass an order setting aside and quashing the findings of the Review Medical Examination Board and Detailed Medical Examination declaring the Applicant medically unfit on the ground of "Tattoo Mark on left forearm 10 cm";

D. Pass an order directing the Respondents to constitute an independent Medical Board and to conduct the medical examination of the Applicant;

E. Pass an order directing the Respondents to appoint the Applicant to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police under Compassionate Appointment quota along with all the consequential benefits including arrears, etc. along with interest at GPF rates.

F. Award cost of the proceedings: and

G. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant.”

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the father of the applicant Late Sh. Rameshwar Singh (PIS No. 28883954), was appointed in Delhi Police on 28.07.1988 and died in harness on 24.07.2022. Pursuant to the compassionate appointment policy, the applicant submitted a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The Applicant’s candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police was considered, and he was directed to undergo a Detailed Medical Examination (DME)vide letter dated 08.05.2025. Subsequently, vide letter dated 17.10.2025, the Applicant was declared medically unfit in the DME on account of a tattoo on the left forearm measuring 10 cm. He was accordingly directed to appear for a Review Medical Examination (RME) on 28.10.2025, which he duly attended. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that prior to the RME, the Applicant underwent tattoo removal treatment on 27.10.2025 (Annexure A7).However, vide impugned order dated 01.12.2025, the Respondents declared the Applicant medically unfit on the same ground of a tattoo on the left forearm and cancelled his candidature for compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 597/2024 decided on 22.04.2024 titled Deepak Yadav vs. Staff Selection Commission and Ors. , which reads as under:

“In view of the above, we dispose of the present OA(s) by directing the respondents to get the applicant(s) re-medical examination done by a duly constituted Medical Board which would include dermatologist who shall opinion in light of Clause 13.2 as to arrive at a just conclusion whether the applicant(s) are functionally fit for appointment to post of Constable in Delhi Police. It is directed that the re-medical examination shall be undertaken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to convey the decision to the respective applicant(s). In the event, the applicant(s) are found to be fit, further action shall be taken in accordance with law. No order as to costs.”

Learned counsel for the Applicant further points out that the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Deepak Yadav (supra) in W.P.(C) No. 10084/2024 decided on 24.07.2024, which reads as under:

“11. It is pertinent to mention herein, when any candidate has a tattoo on his/her forearm, who is entering in the selection process of any force including Delhi Police and if that tattoo which is objectionable to the petitioners herein then opportunity is always granted to such candidate to get it removed within a