Delhi High Court
Vikash Kumar vs Director General, Indo-Tibetan ... on 26 November, 2021
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12184/2021
VIKASH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDO-TIBETAN BOARDER POLICE
FORCE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.S.S.Rai, Senior Panel Counsel.
% Date of Decision: 26th November, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.38083/2021 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12184/2021 & C.M.No.38084/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the
Respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Constable (Driver)-
2018 in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Force.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner applied for
the post of Constable (Driver) under OBC category and successfully
qualified PET/PST, written test and documentation and practical (skill) test.
3. He states that subsequently the petitioner was called on 14th
September 2021 at the Referral Hospital, ITBP, Surajpur, Greater Noida for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:29.11.2021
17:45:32
a detailed medical examination wherein he was declared unfit on the ground
of a tattoo embossed on his right arm.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the tattoo mark on the
petitioner's right arm is his own name and it does not cause any prejudice to
anyone and the same is within the permissible limits as provided under the
rules. He also states that none of the government guidelines prohibit tattoo
as a medical disqualification.
5. He also states that the conditions/requirements laid down by the
respondents are also not in accordance with the norms followed by the
Indian Army.
6. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the recruitment
of the petitioner for the post of Constable (Driver) in ITBP is taking place in
accordance with Advertisement No.2/2018, a copy of which has been filed
at page 16 of the paper book. Clause 4.4(iv) of the said Advertisement
stipulates the permissible categories of tattoos as under:-
4.4 Minimum Medical Standard:-
xxx xxx xxx
(iv) Tattoos:-
(a) Content: Being a secular country, the religious sentiments
of our countrymen are to be respected and thus, tattoos
depicting religious symbol or figures and the name, as
followed in Indian Army are to be permitted.
(b) Location: Tattoos marked on traditional sites on 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 ¼ of the particular part (Elbow
or Hand) of the body.
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:29.11.2021
17:45:32
7. The petitioner admittedly has a tattoo on his right arm, which is the
saluting arm. Consequently, the petitioner is not eligible as per Clause
4.4(iv)(b) of the Advertisement.
8. The petitioner's reliance on the Indian Army policy is misconceived
as the petitioner is seeking recruitment in ITBP and the advertisement on the
basis of which he had applied contained the disqualification in Clause
4.4(iv). Having participated in the advertisement without demur the
petitioner cannot challenge the said disqualification at this stage.
9. In any event, this Court is of the view that the stipulation of
disqualification of tattoo on the right arm is a classification that is based on
an intelligible differentia and the intelligible differentia has a rationale
relation to the object sought to be achieved, namely, that the tattoo is visible
while saluting. Consequently, the petitioner's candidature has been rightly
rejected.
10. In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition along with pending
application is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2021
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:29.11.2021
17:45:32
