CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 4000/2025 This the 15th day of December, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Naresh Dayma, Age 37 years, S/o Sh. Mahipal Dayma, R/o Village Kadarpur, PO-Badshahpur, Gurugram-122101 Group C (SI Exe-Male).

….Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chauhan)

Versus

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road, Behind Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi.

3. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

4. The Additional Commissioner of Police, Recruitment: Delhi, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009.

…Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. R K Sharma)

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (Judicial):

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):-

“ (i) To set aside the medical report dated 26.9.2025 (Annexure A-1) and RME report dated 27.09.2025 (Annexure A-2) and to direct the respondent to conduct fresh medical examination by an independent Dermatologist (Government Hospital) to verify the presence or absence of the tattoo, and if found fit, then to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of Sub- Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police as per merit obtained in the present selection process, with all consequential benefits including seniority & pay.

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant.”

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the grant of relief in the present matter.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, states that the matter can be disposed of at the admission stage itself as in an identical matter this Tribunal in OA No.966/2024, pronounced on 16.10.2025, titled as Avanish Kumar Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Delhi Police, the same issue has been dealt with. No further counter may be called for.

5. However, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the only issue is to be examined as to whether the applicant is allowed to be medically re-examined. We draw a reference to the decision rendered in the case of Avanish Kumar (supra).

6. However, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, a written synopsis has been filed on behalf of the applicant. It has been highlighted that the applicant is an ex-serviceman and has already rendered 20 years of service in Indian Air Force, discharged on 30.09.2024 with A4G1 (SHAPE-1) fitness and Exceptional Character. Learned counsel further states that the tattoo was already there while the applicant was serving in Indian Air Force, which is not a disputed position. Furthermore, the tattoo measured 7x11 cm, arm size 29x34 cm, but the RME wrongly concluded it exceeded ¼ limit as per Clause 12.13 of the advertisement.

7. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, more particularly, in the light of the fact that the decision of DME and RME in mechanical and incorrect manner declared the applicant unfit without adherence to the advertisement norms. In as much as the applicant, who was an ex-serviceman, cannot be penalized for the tattoo with which he has rendered full service before. Therefore, the ratio of Avanish Kumar will straightly apply to the present case.

8. In view of the above, the present OA is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to examine the applicant by an independent specialist, namely a dermatologist, to arrive at a just and fair conclusion regarding his functional fitness to perform duties, keeping in mind the nature of the ailment. If, upon such medical re-examination, the applicant is found fit, he shall be granted the consequential reliefs of appointment, provided there exists no other legal or administrative impediment. However, the applicant shall not be entitled to any