Pravesh Grewal v. Union of India

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 17107/2024 & CM APPL. 72506/2024

2. This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

Department to treat the Petitioner as „fit‟ for recruitment, in light of the fact that the tattoo is of a religious nature, which was engraved on the Petitioner at 4-5 years of age, and as on date is extremely faint and indiscernible (Annexure P-7).”

3. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), pursuant to the advertisement for the Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2024.

4. Having cleared his written examination as well as the Physical Standards Test/Physical Efficiency Test, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 05.12.2024, which declared him unfit for appointment on three grounds, including on the ground that there was a tattoo on his right forearm inner surface (saluting hand).

5. On the very next day, the petitioner was made to undergo a Review Medical Board, which declared him unfit for appointment solely due to the presence of a tattoo on the inner side of his right forearm. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the Judgments of this Court in Shubham Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3726, Vineet Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3939, Davinder Kaur v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2900, and Akshay Choudhary v. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3817, submits that as the tattoo can be easily removed, sufficient time should have been granted to the petitioner to have the same removed before conducting the Review Medical Board. He further submits that the petitioner, in fact, had been selected for the post of Sub-Inspector in the CRPF in March 2024, and at that time, there was no objection to the presence of the tattoo. He further submits that the petitioner has got his tattoo removed on 10.12.2024.

7. Issue notice.

8. Notice is accepted by Mr.Puneet Yadav, learned counsel, on behalf of the respondents.

9. He submits that the Guidelines for the Recruitment Medical Examination in the Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, as of May 2015, clearly prohibit the presence of a tattoo on the right arm of the candidate. He also places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Vikas Kumar v. Director General, Indo- Tibetan Border police Force & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5130, to submit that, in similar circumstances, this Court had held the petitioner therein to be ineligible for appointment.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

11. In Akshay Chaudhary (supra), after having taken note of the Guidelines for Recruitment, this Court held as under:

ensure that the visible part of the hand while saluting is clear in all respect. To that extent, the conclusion of the Review Medical Board, may be justified. But the fact remains that the Review Medical Board should not have examined the petitioner immediately after few days of surgery and should have given sufficient time to the petitioner to ensure healing of the scar and then decide the fitness/unfitness of the petitioner, as from the photograph of the petitioner's right forearm at ANNEXURE P-6, as well as the opinion sought by the petitioner from a skin specialist at ANNEXURE P-7 on April 20, 2024, who opined that no residue of tattoo can be seen and 2-3 sittings, would be needed for complete clearance of post-laser hyperpigmentation, prima facie, it appears that the scar might have healed. As such, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is of the view that the appropriate shall be that the respondents conduct reexamination of the petitioner's right forearm through a new Medical Board and come to a conclusion, whether the scar on the right forearm pursuant to removal of tattoo continues to be unhealed and unhealthy or has completely healed leaving no residue of tattoo. If the view of the Medical Board is in favour of the petitioner then the respondents shall, subject to availability of the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Commandant (Group A) take further action in respect of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Commandant. Otherwise, the matter shall be treated as final against the petitioner. The aforesaid process of re-examination shall be completed within a period of six weeks from today as an outer limit and further action, if any, shall be taken as expeditiously as possible.”