Back
Jhantu Sarkar BSF Recruitment Case Orders AIIMS for Burn Mark
A Burn Question: Tattoo Removal Leaves Applicant in Medical Limbo
The has intervened in a BSF recruitment dispute, directing the to independently examine whether a burn mark on a candidate’s right forearm—sustained from removing a tattoo—is permanent or will heal completely. The Division Bench of Justice Partha Pratim Roy and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty flagged a significant gap in the medical guidelines for recruitment: while the rules provide a for certain disabilities, they are silent on the for a caused by tattoo removal.
The Dispute: From Tattoo to Burn
The appellant, Jhantu Sarkar, was declared unfit by the
on
on the ground of "tattoo right forearm". He subsequently underwent therapy to remove the tattoo and appeared before the
on
. However, the RME also declared him unfit, this time on account of
"tattoo and
present"
. Aggrieved, Sarkar challenged both reports before a Single Judge, who dismissed his
. He then appealed to the Division Bench.
Arguments Over and Scar Marks
Sarkar’s counsel, , relied on the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in CAPF and , arguing that a scar mark or burn injury below 40% of total body surface area cannot lead to without an opinion on whether it requires frequent treatment or interferes with wearing . He pointed to of the guidelines, which prescribes a for certain disabilities.
The , represented by , countered that of the guidelines specifically permits tattoos only on the left forearm—the . Since Sarkar’s tattoo was on the right forearm, the DME rightly disqualified him. The RME’s finding of a further justified the rejection.
Court's Key Observation: Guidelines Silent on Tattoo Removal Burns
The Division Bench noted that
provides a
of one to six months for the disabilities listed therein, but contains no corresponding provision for a
resulting from tattoo removal.
"The guidelines also provide for a
in respect of the disabilities incorporated in
ranging from 1 month to 6 months. However, in respect of 'a
' occurred due to removal of tattoo, no
has been provided,"
the Court observed.
The Bench further remarked that the Single Judge appeared to have "glossed over" this issue and returned no finding on it.
Independent Medical Examination Ordered
To resolve the matter, the High Court directed the Executive Director of AIIMS, Kalyani, to constitute a including a dermatologist to examine Sarkar. The Board must answer two questions:
- Whether the burn injury on the right forearm would be a ?
- Whether such a burn mark would heal completely leaving no burn mark, and if so, the approximate time required for healing.
The exercise must be completed by the , and the report filed before the Court. Sarkar and a representative of the are to be informed of the examination date.
What's Next?
The has been listed for further consideration on . Depending on the AIIMS report, the Court may order Sarkar’s or uphold the rejection.
This case highlights a potential gap in the CAPF medical guidelines, which may prompt the authorities to revisit the rules to account for injuries resulting from voluntary tattoo removal.
