Delhi High Court
Parivesh Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 10 January, 2018
$~52.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 248/2018 and CM APPL. 1049/2018 (Direction)
PARIVESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija and
Ms. Divyya Kapoor, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 10.01.2018
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order
25.12.2017, passed by the respondent No.2/Air Force cancelling his
candidature for recruitment to the post of Airman.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
applied for recruitment to the post of Airman with the respondent No.2 on
29.09.2016 and on passing the written and physical examination in
February, 2017, he was called for a medical test in which he had appeared
on 07.8.2017 and had cleared the same. On 10.11.2017, the petitioner was
issued a call letter to report on 24.12.2017. On the very next day to his
reporting to the respondents on 24.12.2017, the petitioner was handed over a
cancellation of his enrolment letter dated 25.12.2017, stating inter alia that
the permanent body tattoo found on his body was not permissible for
selection to the Armed Forces, as per the existing policy. The said letter also
stated that non-permissibility of body tattoos for enrolment in the Indian Air
Force was duly published in the advertisement for the recruitment to the
Indian Air Force. Aggrieved by the aforesaid cancellation order, the
petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was
selected for the subject post, the respondents could not have issued the
impugned cancellation letter at the last moment. He contends that the
petitioner had duly declared that he had a body tattoo, in terms of a
certificate submitted by him when a call letter was issued to him and it is not
as if he has hidden anything from the respondents.
4. Mr. Makhija, learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on
advance notice counters the submissions made by the other side and points
out that though the advertisement issued by the respondents for inviting
applications from the candidates had specifically stated that "candidates
with permanent body tattoos must submit a photograph of the tattoo with
size and type of the tattoo", the petitioner had failed to do so. He clarifies
that only a permanent body tattoo on the inner face of the fore arms (inside
of elbow to the wrist), the back (dorsal) part of the hand /reverse side of
palm and in the case of Tribals with tattoos, which are as per the custom and
traditions of their tribes, are permitted. The right to decide on the
acceptability/unacceptability of the individual rests ultimately with the
Selection Committee.
5. We may note that the entire dispute hinges on the position of the
tattoo on the body of the petitioner. Despite the same, learned counsel for
the petitioner has not filed any photographs to indicate as where exactly has
the tattoo been engraved on the body of the petitioner.
6. Mr. Makhija, learned counsel for the respondents hands over copies of
the photographs of the body tattoo of the petitioner, which reveal that the
same is not on the inner face of his fore-arm, but on the external face of his
fore arm, which is not permissible. The said photographs are taken on
record. Further, as per the guidelines laid down by the respondents in terms
of their letter dated 11.4.2014, furnished to us by the counsel for the
respondents, though there is no restriction on the size or type of the tattoo
engraved, the discretion ultimately rests with the recruiting agency to allow
or disallow the candidate for appointment. The said guidelines are also taken
on record.
7. Having regard to the fact that the tattoo engraved on the body of the
petitioner is not in conformity with the relaxation granted in the
advertisement, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of
cancellation of his appointment. Nor can the respondents be faulted for
cancelling the candidature of the petitioner in December, 2017, when he had
failed to submit a photograph of his tattoo at the time of submitting his
application, as prescribed in the advertisement.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith the pending
application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
JANUARY 10, 2018/na/ap
