Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanyogita vs Union Of India on 28 November, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:40459]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11906/2023
Sanyogita D/o Shri Sushil Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 2 Chak 3 Bgwm, Ballar Dantaur, Tehsil Khajuwala,
District Bikaner, (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home
Affairs, Govt. Of India, 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 Its Regional
Director (Northern Region), Block No. 12, Cgo Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
4. Review Medical Board, Ch-Bsf Jodhpur, Served To Be
Through Po/cmo (Sg) Composite Hospital Mandore Road,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.R. Budania.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Dy.S.G.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
28/11/2023
By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for following reliefs:-
A) "The Memorandum dated 20.07.2023 declaring
petitioner unfit (Annex-4) and Report of Review Medical
Examination dated 21.07.2023 (Annex.-5) may be
declared illegal, arbitrary and same may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
B) Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the
candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the
post of constable (General Duty) in Center Armed Force
[2023:RJ-JD:40459] (2 of 7) [CW-11906/2023]
(CAPFs) in her category according to her merit
position..."
Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent No.3
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 above named organizations in the order of preference /
priority.
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. However, the petitioner was declared medically unfit
[2023:RJ-JD:40459] (3 of 7) [CW-11906/2023]
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. 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.
Submissions have been made that the reasons assigned by
the Medical Board and the Review Medical Board for declaring the
candidate unfit for recruitment are wholly illegal, arbitrary and
unreasonable. Learned counsel submitted that a tattoo mark on
the right arm of the petitioner was got inscribed by her parents at
a tender age. It was urged that though the tattoo has now been
removed by the petitioner but the tattoo removal scar remains on
her arm even now. However, the tattoo mark in no way disabled
the petitioner from discharging the duties of Constable in the
respondent organization.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
arguments placed reliance on the judgments of the Division Bench
of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hardik
Rameshkumar Vaghela Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ
Petition No.1991 of 2019), Shridhar Mahadeo Pakhare Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.10026 of 2017) and
Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in the case of
Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SWP No.2108/2016).
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that once the Medical Experts have examined the petitioner and
[2023:RJ-JD:40459] (4 of 7) [CW-11906/2023]
have found her unfit for the advertised post, this Court is not
required to interfere in the matter and adjudicate upon the
correctness of the opinion(s) expressed by the Medical Experts.
Learned counsel further submitted that the orders impugned
passed by the respondents / Medical Board is in conformity with
revised uniform guidelines for recruitment medical examination in
Central Armed Police Forces, issued by Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, dated 20.05.2015 wherein it has been
prescribed that candidates with tattoos / skin art shall not be
treated fit for the advertised post.
Learned counsel reiterated that since decision of the Medical
Board and Review Medical Board is in conformity with the
guidelines dated 20.05.2015, the same deserves to be upheld by
this Court. In support of his submissions, he has pleaded reliance
on the judgments of Shivani Vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWP-
17486-2023) passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court at Chandigarh and Dharmraj Jat Vs. Union of India &
Anr. [W.P.(C) 8692/2019] passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Sub Clause-3 of Clause 11 of the uniform guidelines for
recruitment medical examination for recruitment of GOs and NGOs
in CAPFs and AR dated 20.05.2015 reads as under:-
"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
[2023:RJ-JD:40459] (5 of 7) [CW-11906/2023]
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:
b) 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.
a) 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.
b) Size- size must be less than ¼ of the particular part (Elbow or
Hand) of the body."
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shridhar Mahadeo
Pakhare (supra) in para-5 pleased to held as under:-
"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
need 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 medial
opinion holding the petitioner ineligible on
account of tattoo mark shall not be construed as
[2023:RJ-JD:40459] (6 of 7) [CW-11906/2023]
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."
Indisputably, the petitioner has successfully passed all the
tests in pursuance to the selection process initiated by the
respondents vide Annexure-1. However, her candidature had been
rejected by the Review Medical Board on the ground of having
tattoo removal scar mark over right forearm and a dorsum of the
right hand. Thus, it is clear that presently petitioner does not have
any tattoo / skin art on her hands. However, mark/scar of her
tattoo removal continues to be on her arm, due to which she has
been declared unfit. It is also not in dispute before this Court that
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. This Court does not find any material available
on record indicating that the tattoo removal scar mark over
forearm and dorsum of the right hand in any manner creates
impediment in discharging the duties attached with the advertised
post. This Court also does not find any material available on
record that tattoo removal scar mark in any manner will interfere
in the performance of duties of a Constable in the respondent-
Organization. It would be highly unjust if the petitioner is deprived
from employment in the respondent organization despite her
possessing eligibility for the advertised post particularly when
indisputably the tattoo in question has been removed by her.
In the result, the present Civil Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned orders dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure-4) and 21.07.2023
[2023:RJ-JD:40459] (7 of 7) [CW-11906/2023]
(Annexure-5) declaring the petitioner medically unfit are quashed
and set aside. The petitioner shall not be declared ineligible for the
post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces
(CAPF) etc., in her category on account of tattoo removal mark on
her forearm. The respondents are further directed to provide
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (General
Duty) as per her merit in the questioned selection process, if she
is otherwise eligible with all consequential benefits.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
Prashant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
