Delhi High Court
Staff Selection Commission And Ors vs Shashikant Kumar on 17 February, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13616/2024 & CM APPL. 4587/2025
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, Sr. PC
with Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.
versus
SHASHIKANT KUMAR .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
% 17.02.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This application seeks modification of following order dated 27
September 2024, passed by this Court in the present proceedings:
"1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 22 April 2024 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 635/2024 already stands
implemented and that, therefore the cause of action in this petition
does not survive.
2. The petition is accordingly disposed of."
2. Mr. Himanshu Pathak, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the
petitioners, submits that the aforesaid order was passed because of a
lack of communication between the petitioners and the respondent.
3. Accordingly, the application is allowed, the order is withdrawn.
4. Mr. Pathak acknowledges that this case may be disposed of in
the light of similar orders passed by this Court involving the presence
or absence of a tattoo on the forearm of the candidate.
5. Accordingly, following the order passed in one of several
matters in which the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the
candidate, who aspired to be recruited as Constable in the Delhi
Police, to be examined by a dermatologist to ascertain whether he has
a tattoo on his forearm.
6. Given the innocuous nature of the direction, we have, in several
similar cases2, declined to interfere, noting that the Tribunal has
merely directed the respondent to be examined by a dermatologist,
who would assess the respondent's functional fitness for appointment
to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police in the light of Clause 13.2
of the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Constable
(Executive) male and female in the Delhi Police Examination 2023.
Clause 13.2 does not allow an aspirant to the post of Constable to
possess any tattoo on her, or his, right forearm.
1 "the Tribunal" hereinafter
2SSC v Priti Bhati (2024 SCC Online Del 6735), SCC v Viraaj Singh (2024 SCC Online Del 6763) and
7. While, therefore, declining to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to direct the
dermatologist, who would examine the respondent in terms of the
impugned order of the learned Tribunal, to also keep in mind the
observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Staff Selection
Commission v Deepak Yadav3.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2025/aky
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
several other similar cases.
3 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5162
