Jharkhand High Court
Pawan Kumar Mahto vs Union Of India on 17 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
Pawan Kumar Mahto, aged about 26 years, son of Jawahar Lal Mahto,
resident of Balidih Goswami Tola, Village-Balidih, Tanr Balidih, P.O.
Balidih, P.S. Balidih, District-Bokaro.
... ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, represented through Secretary to the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel
and Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO
Complex, Government of India, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S.
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. Regional Director (ER), Staff Selection Commission, 1st MSO
Building, (8th Floor), 234/4, P.O. Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose
Road, P.S. Maidan, District Kolkata, West Bengal - 700020.
4. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs through its Principal
Secretary, North Block, P.O. & P.S. Chanakyapuri, New Delhi -
110001.
5. Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman SSC, Block No.12,
CGO Complex, P.O. & P.S. - Lodhi Road New Delhi - 110003.
6. Director General CRPF (Recruitment Branch) East Block - 7, Level -
4, Sector 01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066.
7. The Director General (DG) 40th Bn, ITBPF, Post Office - Kanke Road,
P.S. - Kanke, Ranchi Jharkhand 834006.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC
Mr. Harsh Chandra, AC to CGC
----------------------------
1 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
CAV/Reserved on 11.06.2025 Pronounced on 17/06/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against
the order/judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4672 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the
prayer made in the writ petition for direction upon the respondents to
declare the writ petitioner eligible in every aspect so as the writ petitioner
be appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police
Forces (CAPFs), has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition
requires to be enumerated, read as under:
An advertisement inviting application for appointment as
Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat
Security Force SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) and Sepoy in
Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2022. The appellant/writ
petitioner participated in the selection process and was invited for
appearing in the Examination on 17.01.2023 in which he was declared to
be qualified and was called for Physical Standard Test(PST)/Physical
Efficiency Test(PET). The appellant/writ petitioner got qualified in the
PST/PET and was subjected to Detailed Medical Examination (DME) in
which the appellant/writ petitioner was declared unfit.
The appellant/writ petitioner therefore, gave option to proceed
for review medical examination against the findings of detailed
medication examination wherein the review medication board deferred
with the finding of the detailed medication examination but with respect to
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
existence of Right Forearm Tattoo in the Saluting Hand and healed scar,
the appellant/writ petitioner was declared unfit.
The appellant/writ petitioner, being aggrieved thereof, preferred
a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 4672 of 2023 which
having being dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred.
3. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect that the appellant/writ
petitioner had participated in the selection process for appointment as
Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat
Security Force SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) and Sepoy in
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Examination, 2022.
4. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he has duly qualified in
the physical test and was called for the medical examination. The
appellant/writ petitioner was found to be medically unfit initially since the
Tattoo mark was found on the Right Forearm along with Left Convergent
Squint, Healed Scar and Knock Knees. The appellant/writ petitioner
challenged the opinion of the medical board before the review medical
board. The review medical board after conducting the fresh medical
examination of the writ petitioner has found that the writ petitioner is
having Tattoo Mark measuring 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the right forearm of
the saluting hand, however, the said review medical board has found no
knock knees or even the squint.
5. The petitioner has not been found to be eligible on the reason of having
Tattoo Mark in the right forearm of the saluting hand. The appellant/writ
petitioner, on the aforesaid ground, has approached this Court by filing
writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4672 of 2023. During pendency of the
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
said writ petition, the report of the review medical board has also been
challenged by filing interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1358 of
2024. The said interlocutory application was allowed vide order dated
13.02.2024. The learned writ court on consideration of the guideline dated
20.05.2015 for recruitment in Central Armed Police Force, Assam Rifles
as also the unfit memorandum, has refused to pass positive direction in
favour of the appellant/writ petitioner on the ground that the Tattoo Mark
has been found on his Right Forearm Saluting Hand which according to
the said guideline is a disqualification of a candidate for the purpose of
recruitment.
6. The said order is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.
7. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner while
assailing the impugned order has taken the following grounds:
(i) The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that merely
on the ground of having Tattoo Mark on the Right Forearm of the
Saluting Hand which has been considered to be an ineligibility of
the appellant/writ petitioner by the appointing authority but the said
reason of ineligibility cannot be said to be proper reason to declare
the appellant/writ petitioner ineligible for the purpose of the said
recruitment.
(ii) The ground has been taken that the learned Single Judge has not
appreciated the report of the review medical board wherein healed
scar has also been found which suggest that there was no Tattoo
Mark available in the Right Forearm Saluting Hand.
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
(iii) Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has further taken
the ground that the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated
that save and except the Tattoo Mark on the Right Forearm of the
Saluting Hand there was no physical incapability declaring the
appellant/writ petitioner to be ineligible for appointment to the said
post.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the aforesaid ground, has
challenged the said order by filing the instant appeal.
9. Learned AC to Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned CGC is present and has
defended the impugned judgment.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
pleading made in the writ petition as also in the memo of appeal as also
incorporated in the impugned judgment.
11. The issue which requires consideration is as to whether the appellant/writ
petitioner can be declared to be eligible if he is not eligible in terms of the
guidelines dated 20.05.2015 but before considering the aforesaid aspect,
the admitted facts of the case need to be referred herein.
12. The appellant/writ petitioner has participated in the selection process in
terms of the advertisement wherein the recruitment process has initiated in
pursuance of the guideline dated20.05.2015. The said guideline contains
condition regarding Tattoo Mark under the Miscellaneous Conditions
which is being referred herein as under:
"3) Tattoo: The practice of engraving / tattooing in India is prevalent
since tir 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
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
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 go 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
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 forearm, but only LEFT forearm, being non saluting limb or
dorsum of hands are to be allowed.
c) Size-size must be less than ¼ of the particular part (Elbow or Hand)
of the body."
13. It is evident from the aforesaid condition that in a case if a candidate is
having Tattoo Mark on the Right Forearm of the Saluting Hand, then in
such circumstances, the said candidate cannot be declared to be eligible
for the purpose of consideration of recruitment to the said post.
14. The fact of the case of the appellant/writ petitioner herein is that he was
available in the physical test in which he has been declared to be
successful. Subsequent thereto, he has participated in the medical board,
however, following infirmities were found:
(i) Left Convergent Squint;
(ii) Right Forearm Tattoo & Healed Scar;
(iii) Knock Knees.
15. The appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the said medical report by
opting to go before the review medical board. The review medical board
was conducted in which the review medical board however has not found
the other infirmities as was found by the medical board but tattoo mark on
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
the right forearm of the saluting hand was found to be there. The
appellant/writ petitioner, therefore, was declared to be ineligible by taking
into consideration the specific condition stipulated in the guideline as
referred hereinabove by which a candidate having Tattoo Mark on his
right forearm of the saluting hand is declared to be ineligible.
16. The fact about availability of Tattoo Mark on his right forearm of the
saluting hand is not in dispute since the appellant/writ petitioner, while
filing the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1358 of 2024 which has
been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.02.2024,
has challenged the entire report of the review medical board without
questioning the non-availability of the Tattoo Mark on his right forearm of
the saluting hand which would be evident from the prayer made in the said
interlocutory application which is being referred herein as under:
"A. Amendment in the Prayer vide Para 1(B) & prayer portion of the
writ petition by addition of following relief "Quashing of decision of
Review Medical Board dated 03.08.2023 whereby the petitioner has been
declared unfit on account of 'tattoo mark' on the anterior aspect of Right
Forearm.
..."
Paragraph-5 and 6 of the aforesaid interlocutory application also needs
to be referred herein, which reads as under:
"5. That it is stated that due to inadvertence and lack of legal acumen
the petitioner could not impugn the decision of Review Medical Board
dated 03.08.2023, which is already enclosed to the writ petition as
Annexure-7. It is stated the action of the respondents in declaring the
petitioner unfit on the ground of tattoo mark is wholly unsustainable in
the light of the extant guidelines of the year 2015.
6. That it is stated that the Petitioner has also got his tattoo marks
removed by a simple skin treatment and no tattoo mark is visible on his
Right Forearm."
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
17. At the time of filing of the writ petition, there was no prayer made
questioning the review medical board since there was no review medical
board report and that is the reason the interlocutory application was filed
after the report of the review medical board questioning the report in
entirety without making specific statement that tattoo mark on the right
forearm of the saluting hand is not there rather the prayer has been made
that even though the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand
is there, the same cannot be a bar for the purpose of declaring the
appellant/writ petitioner to be ineligible.
18. It is also the admitted fact that the guideline has not been challenged
which put bar in the consideration of the candidate for the purpose of
recruitment if the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is
found. Therefore, the fact is admitted that the appellant/writ petitioner has
been found to be having with the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the
saluting hand and in this context, the issue has been decided by the
learned Single Judge that if the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the
saluting hand is there and if in such circumstances, the appellant/writ
petitioner has been declared to be ineligible, can such decision of the
selection board or the recruitment agency be said to suffer from error.
19. The learned Single Judge has answered the same that if the decision has
been taken based upon the ineligibility clause as has been provided in the
guideline dated 20.05.2015 by the recruitment authority, the said decision
cannot be said to suffer from error.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has argued that even
though the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is there,
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
the same is not a serious condition to declare the candidate to be ineligible
and the same is not worth to be accepted due to the reason that if a
condition has been stipulated in the guideline and the said condition has
not been questioned then contrary to the condition stipulated in the
guideline made for the purpose of consideration of recruitment of one or
the other candidate, if any decision will be taken by the recruitment
agency, the same will amount to relaxing the condition which is not
permissible and if such condition will be relaxed then the question would
be that why the relaxation to only one candidate and why it be not applied
uniformly. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudullah
Khan & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex
Court at paragraphs-29, 30, 31 and 32 has been pleased to observe which
are being referred as under:
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is
too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to
public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness
resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate.
Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in
accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when
a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to
be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms
and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically
reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules.
Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be
mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the
rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power
of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be
necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the
relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete.
Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that
there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court
committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the
submission of the disability certificate either along with the application
form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be
relaxed in the case of Respondent.
31. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the
mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in
concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to
the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be
no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement
unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules
and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the
rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the
advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our
notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the
impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of
identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the
publication of the select list.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P.,
(2019) 17 SCC 373 while taking the reference of Bedanga Talukdar vs.
Saifudullah Khan & Ors. (supra) has categorically observed which reads
as under:
11. Admittedly, the Rules governing the selection to the posts of
Technician Grade 2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) require every candidate
to submit a Doeacc certificate signifying completion of 80 hours' CCC at
the time of interview. Such condition was made compulsory. The
advertisement also contained the condition regarding submission of the
certificate at the time of interview. There is no doubt that there exists a
power of relaxation of any of the Rules which could be exercised by the
Chairman of the Corporation. It is nobody's case that the
Chairman/Managing Director was not competent to relax the Rules. But,
the submission made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is
that the relaxation could not have been done as the advertisement did not
mention about a possible relaxation of the Rules. We find force in the
said submission made on behalf of the writ petitioners as this Court
in Bedanga Talukdar [Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011)
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
12 SCC 85 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 635] held as follows : (SCC pp. 92-93,
para 29)
"29. ... In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further
reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in
conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words,
there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being
shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be
conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure.
Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an
advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot
be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless
such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in
the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the
rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of
such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement.
However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due
publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who
become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity
to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement
without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
(emphasis supplied)
12. We are in respectful agreement with the above judgment of this
Court. Exercise of the power of relaxation without informing the
candidates about the existence of such power would be detrimental to the
interests of others who did not possess the certificate and did not take
part in the selection process. We are unable to accept the submission that
selection is on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the
written test and interview and that the Doeacc certificate is not an
essential requirement. The Rule as well as the advertisement provide for
submission of the certificate at the time of interview, compulsorily. The
Rule further provides for production of the certificate as an additional
requirement for selection. The above stipulation in the Rule as well as the
advertisement cannot be ignored.
22. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nutan Kumari Versus
B.R.A. Bihar University and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1408 has
reiterated the same view which reads as under:
23. Further, once an advertisement has been issued and the selection
criteria prescribed, there is little scope for relaxing the norms, more so,
by the Selection Committee unless and until it can be adequately
demonstrated that it had the power to do so. We may allude to a decision
of this Court in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission and B.
Swapna17 which highlights the adverse consequences of interfering with
the criteria of selection laid down under the rules in the following words:
"14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended
rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for
Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable.
Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria
cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A
person who did not apply because a certain criterion e.g. minimum
percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is
lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended
during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same.
That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is
expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.
Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention
to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule
is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation
it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P. Mahendran v. State
of Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 411 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 163 : (1990) 12 ATC
727] and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig [(1999) 1 SCC 544 : 1999
SCC (L&S) 325].)
15. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope for
relaxation of norms. Although the Court must look with respect upon the
performance of duties by experts in the respective fields, it cannot
abdicate its functions of ushering in a society based on rule of law. Once
it is most satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did not
have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of
selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated.
In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984
SCC (L&S) 214] this Court held that once it is established that there is
no power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection
of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms
prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out
and cannot otherwise be exercised."
23. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid settled proposition of law that the
condition as has been stipulated in the guideline for consideration of a
candidate for the recruitment, the said condition is strictly to be adhered to
and there cannot be any deviation.
24. This Court, based upon the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as referred hereinabove, is of the view that if a condition has been
stipulated in the guideline that if a candidate is having tattoo mark on the
right forearm of the saluting hand, then the same will be considered to be
a condition for ineligibility. The fact about having tattoo mark on the right
forearm of the saluting hand is admitted one as would be evident from the
report of the review medical board and in that view of the matter, if any
deviation will be there by directing to consider the appellant/writ
petitioner eligible, the same will be contrary to the provision as contained
in the guideline dated 20.05.2015.
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
25. This Court, therefore, is of the view that no such endeavour is to be given
to a candidate who is not found to be eligible in terms of the guideline.
26. Accordingly, the issue, as referred above, is answered.
27. After the issue having been answered, this Court has gone through the
impugned judgment and has found that the learned Single Judge has taken
into consideration the primacy of the guideline and the adherence to the
condition stipulated in the guideline has been taken into consideration
primarily by which the appellant/writ petitioner has been held to be not
eligible for having tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand.
28. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the judgment relied upon on
behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner, i.e., in the case of Dharmvir Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ Petition(s) Civil No(s).444 of 2019] and
Sanyogita Vs. Union of India, 2023 SSC OnLine Raj 3709.
29. This Court has appreciated the aforesaid case and for ready reference, the
factual aspect of both the cases are being discussed herein.
30. As per the factual aspects of the Dharmvir Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (supra) the petitioner in the selection process undertaken for the
posts of Sub Inspectors, U.P. Police, had qualified in five stages of the
examination (Physical Standard Test, Preliminary Written Test, Physical
Efficiency Test, Main Written Test and Group Discussion) and was
thereafter subjected to normal medical examination. It was found that the
petitioner was suffering from medical problem known as DNS (Deviated
Nasal Septum). On a representation made by the petitioner, the petitioner
was again medically examined by Medical Board which affirmed the
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
findings and found him to be unfit on account of the aforesaid medical
condition. The candidature of the petitioner was thus rejected.
31. The petitioner thereafter approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refer the petitioner for
medical re-examination by the Medical Board for his temporary unfitness.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the nature of ailment and
medical condition, has held that since the issue appears to be remediable
and not of any permanent character, therefore, allow the petition and
direct the respondent- authorities to constitute a fresh Board of Medical
Professionals who may undertake medical examination of the petitioner
afresh.
32. Comparing the fact of the Dharmvir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(supra) in the present factual scenario it is evident that there is material
difference of circumstances. In the aforesaid case the medical condition
appears to be remediable and not of any permanent character but herein
there is violation of eligibility criteria as petitioner has tattoo mark on the
right forearm of the saluting hand.
33. Thus, it is evident that the factual aspect of the present case is quite
different to that of the aforesaid cases since it not the case of the
appellant/writ petitioner that there is no tattoo mark on the right forearm
of the saluting hand rather it is admitted that the tattoo mark on the right
forearm of the saluting hand is there as per the assessment made by the
review medical board.
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
34. From the factual aspect of the case of Sanyogita Vs. Union of India
(supra) it is evident that respondent issued an advertisement inviting
applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of
Constable (General Duty) in Border Security Force (BSF), Central
Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Shashastra Seema Bal (SSB),
Secretariat Security Force (SSF), Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam
Rifles (AR) and Sepoy in NCB (Narcotics Control Bureau) as per the
Recruitment Scheme formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and as
per the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Ministry of Home
Affairs (MHA) and the Staff Selection Commission. As per the
advertisement, the recruitment process consisted of Computer Based
Examination (CBE), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard
Test (PST), Medical Examination and Document Verification. The
eligible candidates while submitting their application forms were required
to opt the names of abovenamed organizations in the order of
preference/priority.
35. The petitioner herein who is a female candidate applied against the
advertised post. The petitioner successfully cleared Computer Based
Examination (CBE), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical
Standard Test (PST). The petitioner had thus, acquired sufficient merit for
being appointed on the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police
Forces (CAPFs) etc., in her category. The petitioner was called for
medical examination on 20.07.2023.
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
36. However, the petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Medical
Board for the reason that she bore a tattoo removal scar mark over her
right forearm and dorsum of right hand. The petitioner being dissatisfied
with the result given in medical examination requested the respondents to
constitute a Review Medical Board.
37. The Review Medical Board after examination vide its order dated
21.07.2023 declared petitioner unfit and maintained the reasons for
medical unfitness mentioned by Medical Board in its communication
dated 20.07.2023.
38. Accordingly, being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner had
preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High
Court and the learned Single Judge while taking into consideration certain
category of candidates having tattoo on their body/hand are being
provided appointment in the respondent-organization in conformity with
Sub Clause-3 of the Clause-11 of the guidelines dated 20.05.2015 has
allowed the said petition.
39. Thus from the aforesaid factual aspects of the said case as relied the writ
petitioner it is evident that the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High
Court while taking into consideration Sub Clause-3 of the Clause-11 of
the guidelines dated 20.05.2015 has formed the opinion that certain
category of candidates having tattoo on their body/hand are being
provided appointment has allowed the prayer of the said petitioner but in
the instant case factual aspect is relatively different and since the
condition stipulated in the said advertisement has not been followed as the
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
appellant/writ petitioner has tattoo mark on the right forearm of the
saluting hand as per the assessment made by the review medical board.
40. Thus, the learned Single Judge on that premise has not found the judgment
rendered in the case of Dharmvir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ
Petition(s) Civil No(s).444 of 2019] and Sanyogita Vs. Union of India,
2023 SSC OnLine Raj 3709 to be applicable in the given facts of the case,
as such, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.
41. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the
order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference.
42. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed, as such, stands
dismissed.
43. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Saurabh /A.F.R.
