[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Devendra Devgade vs Union Of India on 30 March, 2026

                                               1


SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally
signed by
SYED
                                                               2026:CGHC:15438
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
                                                                              NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 13638 of 2025
              1. Devendra Devgade S/o Mr. Sakharam Devgade Aged About
                  21 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Village- Sonesarad Vtc Pipalgaon
                  Kurud, P.O. - Temni, Tehsil- Kirnapur, District- Balaghat (M.P.)
                                                                   ... Petitioner
                                            versus
              1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs,
                  Kartavya Bhavan, 03 Janpath, New Delhi.
              2. The Director General, Crpf (Recruitment Branch), East Block-
                  07, Level 4, Sector 01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
              3. The Staff Selection Commission Through Regional Director
                  (MPR), 5th Floor, Investment Building, Lic Campus-2, Pandri,
                  Raipur
              4. Review medical board through presiding officer/ CMO (SG),
                  GC, CRPF Bilaspur.
                                                                   ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General with Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 30/03/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

"10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioners for its kind perusal.

10.2. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to, quashing and setting aside the impugned Memorandum declaring the Petitioner medically unfit dated 17/11/2025 (Annexure P4) and the Review Medical Examination report dated 20/11/2025 (Annexure P5) may be declared illegal, arbitrary in the interest of justice.

10.3. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to, directing the Respondents to reconsider the Petitioner as medically fit in the light of medical certification obtained from District Hospital Balaghat (Annexure P6) or else respondent no.4 may reexamine the petitioner's scar / alleged tatto again and consider him for further recruitment process to the post of Constable as per his merit position, if he is otherwise eligible with all consequential benefits.

10.4. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, to which the Hon'ble High Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that pursuant to notification

dated 5.9.2025, petitioner applied for the post of Constable

(General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF).

Petitioner successfully clear computer based examination,

physical standard test and therefore, he was called for

detailed medical examination. After detailed medical

examination, petitioner was served with Memorandum dated

17.11.2025, declaring him medically unfit on the ground that

he is having tattoo mark on his right forearm. Thereafter,

petitioner approached the Review Medical Board for review

medical examination in which also petitioner was declared

unfit due to presence of tattoo mark on his right forearm.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has

successfully passed all the tests in pursuance to the selection

process initiated by the respondents vide Annexure-1.

However, his candidature had been rejected straightaway

only on the ground of having tattoo mark over right forearm

without affording him any opportunity to take remedial step in

connection with the tattoo mark, which is remediable and not

of a permanent character. She submits that after rejection by

the Review Medical Board, the petitioner got removed tattoo

mark on his right forearm by surgical procedure, now only

scar of tattoo removal remained on the forearm and in support

thereof, she referred to medical certificate dated 22.11.2025

(Annexure P-6) in which it is clear mentioned that presently

there is only a scar of tattoo mark. She submits that having

got the tattoo removed from right forearm, technically, there

exists no tattoo on the right forearm of the petitioner and as

such, the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria. She further

submits that tattoo removal scar mark on right forearm of

petitioner will not in any manner affect the duties of a

Constable in the respondent-Organization, therefore, it would

be highly unjust if petitioner is deprived from employment in

the respondent organization despite his possessing eligibility

for the advertised post particularly when the tattoo mark in

question has been got removed by him. In support of her

submissions, she placed reliance on the order of the High

Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur, dated 28.11.2023

passed in Civil Writ Petition No.11906/2023.

4. On the other hand, learned Dy. Solicitor General for

respondents opposes submissions made by learned counsel

for petitioner and submits that as per the Guidelines for

Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police

Forces and Assam Rifle, revised as on May 2015, (for short

'the guidelines') tattoos are acceptable only if they are on

some hidden part of the body. They are also permissible if

they are on the left forearm because it is not the saluting arm

and is not exposed at the time of saluting in the force.

However, since the tattoo of the petitioner is on right forearm

which is saluting arm therefore, it is a disqualification as per

Clause 11(3) of the guidelines. He submits that since the

guidelines for a disciplined force are mandatory and are

required to be followed in letter and spirit, the disqualification

of the petitioner cannot be interfered with. He further submits

that after having declared disqualified, petitioner might have

removed his tattoo and left with scar mark but subsequent

removal of the same will not revive petitioner's claim in the

instant process for recruitment. No relief can be granted to the

petitioner in this proceeding. He placed reliance on the order

dated 20.11.2025 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh

in Writ Appeal No.2932/2025.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents annexed along with writ petition.

6. Criteria to be used to determine permissibility of tattoo is

provided in Clause 11 of the guidelines, relevant portion of

which is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

"(3) Tattoo : The practice of engraving/tattooing in India is prevalent since time immemorial, but has been limited to depict the name or a religious figure, invariably on inner aspect of forearm and usually on left side. On the other hand the present young generation is considerably under the influence of western culture and thus the number of potential recruits bearing skin art had grown enormously over the years, which is not only distasteful but distract from good order and discipline in the force.

Following criteria are to be used to determine permissibility of tattoo:

a) Content - being a secular country, the religious sentiments of our countrymen are to be respected and thus tattoos depicting religious symbol or

figure and the name, as followed in Indian army, are to be permitted

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.

c) Size -size must be less than 1/4 of the particular part (Elbow or Hand) of the body."

7. From perusal of above quoted instruction, it is clear that

tattoos of limited categories in terms of religious practices in

India are permissible and that too only on left forearm being

non-saluting arm. Thus, there is no absolute prohibition in

having a tattoo mark. Admittedly, petitioner was having tattoo

on right forearm, which is a saluting limb, and for this reason,

he has been disqualified for the post of Constable in Central

Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).

8. As per pleadings made in writ petition as also submission

made by learned counsel for petitioner, now there exists no

tattoo mark on right forearm of petitioner and there is only a

healthy and stable scar. In support thereof, a medical

certificate dated 22.112025 issued by Surgical Specialist,

District Hospital Balaghat (MP) is submitted along with writ

petition as Annexure P-6 and a photograph of tattoo mark is

also placed on record along with covering memo dated

5.12.2025. From the said certificate and photograph it can be

seen that as on date only the scar of tattoo removal remained

on the forearm of petitioner. Clause 11 (3) of the guidelines

also does not stipulate that if there exists a scar pursuant to

removal of tattoo, the same would lead to disqualification of a

candidate.

9. In Writ Petition No.10026/2017, parties being Shridhar

Mahadeo Pakhare vs Union of India and others, decided on

30.1.2018, the petitioner, who was found eligible for the post

of Constable/Driver and referred for medical examination, was

declared medically unfit by the Medical Officer for the reason

that there appeared a tattoo mark on the outer aspect of right

arm. Petitioner therein challenged the medical opinion and

also prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to

consider him eligible for the post applied for. In the

aforementioned facts of case, Bombay High Court has held

thus:-

"5. In our opinion, it would not be permissible for the employer to treat the class of employees differently and apply different parameters. As has been recorded above, the religious sentiments of the individual need to be respected. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for employment needs to be considered. The petitioner is otherwise found fit by the Medical Board, except on account of carving out the tattoo which has also been removed admittedly to the extent of 90%. We are of the opinion that the respondents need to be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for employment

since he has been found otherwise fit. The Writ Petition is thus allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for employment to the post of 'constable / driver' in C.I.S.F. and the medical opinion holding the petitioner ineligible on account of tattoo mark shall not be construed as an impediment for issuing an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs."

10. In case at hand, petitioner has cleared computer based

examination as well as physical efficiency test and thereby he

has established his merit and eligibility for appointment. Since

a tattoo mark was found on his right forearm, which is a

saluting arm, he was declared medically unfit in accordance

with terms of the guidelines. Defect of a tattoo mark, being a

curable one, cannot be treated at par with disqualification

which go to the root of eligibility. It is well settled preposition

that where a defect is curable/rectifiable, the candidate ought

to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure the same. It is

not in dispute that no opportunity had been given to the

petitioner to get the tattoo removed. Outright rejection of