Parveen Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

(62) PARVEEN KUMAR..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Singh and Ms. Nisha Dhaka, Advs.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS..... Respondents Through: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Sr. PC with Mr. Kamaldeep, GP for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: a. Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/Order /Direction of like nature thereby directing the respondent no. 3 to quash the result of Detailed Medical Examination Dated 11.10.2023 And Review Medical Examination Dated 12.10.2023 b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/Order /Direction of like nature thereby directing the respondent no. 3 to Declare the Petitioner Fit for the position of Assistant Commandant; c. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/Order/Direction of like nature thereby directing the respondents for Considering the Candidature of Petitioner for the driver. W.P.(C) 14907/2023 Page 2 d. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2. The primary challenge in this petition is to the finding of the Detailed Medical Examination dated October 11, 2023 and Review Medical Examination dated October 12, 2023, whereby the petitioner has been found unfit for being appointed to the post of Constable (Driver) on the ground that he has “unhealthy post tattoo removal scar”.

3. There is no dispute that the Tattoo was on his left forearm. The Clause 11(3)(b) of the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, reads as under:- “b) Location- tattoos marked on traditional sites of the body like inner aspect of forearm, but only LEFT forearm, being non saluting limb or dorsum of the hands are to be allowed.”

4. It follows, Tattoo on the left forearm, which is not a saluting limb, is permissible under the aforesaid guidelines.

5. Ms. Nisha Dhaka, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has got the Tattoo removed on the asking of the respondents.

6. Ms. Dhaka has also drawn our attention to page 72 of the paper book, more specifically, Clause 3(c), under the heading „Hand and fingers‟, which reads as under: “(c) Scars and deformities of the fingers or hand that impair normal functioning/free movement of the fingers/hand to such a degree as to interfere with the satisfactory performance of combatised duties, are disqualifying.” W.P.(C) 14907/2023 Page 3

7. She submits the scar on the forearm of the petitioner herein does not impair normal functioning of the hand and as such cannot be a ground to disqualify the petitioner for appointment.

8. We agree with the submission made by Ms. Dhaka by relying on the above provision. Also in the facts of this case and in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Vineet Kumar Meena v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 16030/2022, decided on November 22, 2022, the plea is required to be accepted.

9. At this stage, Ms. Kaul, submits that the respondents shall examine the scar of the petitioner and then proceed accordingly.