Tripura High Court
Ms. R. Purkayastha vs Mr. Bidyut Majumder on 24 November, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.719/2020
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asstt. S.G.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Order
24/11/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has come to be filed by the petitioner namely
Sri Manjit Roy who is present in Court today seeking a direction for
quashing/setting aside the impugned selection procedure followed in
conducting Detailed Medical Examination by the respondents allegedly
violating the selection procedure and for a further direction to declare the
petitioner as qualified or fit in the Detailed Medical Examination.
Bereft of any unnecessary details, suffice it is to note that the
petitioner had applied for a constable pursuant to an advertisement issued by
the respondents under Annexure-A to the present writ petition. The
petitioner had been found successful in the written examination and he has
been produced before the Medical Board for examination. The petitioner has
been examined and has been found unfit because of a tattoo on his right
forearm which is not in dispute. It appears that the petitioner appeared
before Dr. Nilotpal Dey, Assistant Professor of the Agartala Government
Medical College and GBP Hospital who certified at page-48 to the writ
petition that the tattoo had been removed on 04.02.2020 whereafter the
petitioner sought for appearance before a Review Board. Accordingly,
Review Medical Report at Annexure-H indicates that the petitioner was
"unfit on account of 4 cm x 2 cm post tattoo scar on flexes aspect of Rt.
forearm which is distorted, ugly looking scar with a feature of hypertrophy.
It effect the Military bearing."
Learned Asstt. S.G. placed reliance on a judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in case of Sudipta Mondal v. Union of
India & Ors. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 1962. On perusing the
same it clearly appears from Para-3 that the Review Medical Board in the
said case had come to find that the tattoo mark was clearly visible on the
right forearm. In the case at hand it is clearly distinct on facts since the
petitioner appeared in person and his right forearm was seen by the Court
also, no tattoo mark appears to exist on the right forearm but there appears
to be a small scar mark where it is claimed that an earlier tattoo had been
there. So, on the basis of these facts this Court finds that the said judgment
of the Calcutta High Court being distinct on facts has no applicability to the
present case.
The matter had been adjourned on the last occasion asking the
petitioner's counsel to produce the petitioner in Court. To the naked eye it
appears that a small scar exists on the right forearm but as to whether the
said scar would in any manner "effect the Military bearing" is a
questionable matter. It appears that, therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner who is a young person and seeking employment
ought to be granted another opportunity to face the Medical Review Board.
Therefore, this Court directs the respondent No.6 to reconstitute a fresh
Review Medical Board headed by a Dermatologist who shall conduct a
fresh examination of the scar and thereafter submit a fresh report as to
whether such a scar would in any manner effect the discharge of due duties
as a constable. Such report be submitted in a sealed cover before this Court
through the office of the learned Asstt. Solicitor General. For this purpose,
the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.6 on
29.11.2021 on which date the respondent No.6 shall reconstitute a Review
Medical Board and direct the petitioner to appear before the Review
Medical Board for such examination as the Review Board may require in
the matter. Report of such examination by the newly constituted Review
Board shall be produced before this Court on 06.12.2021.
Matter shall be listed on 08.12.2021.
Free copy of this order be handed over to learned Asstt. S.G.
for due communication to respondent No.6.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
