Removing Tattoo After Medical Exam And Before Review Can't Cure Ineligibility: Calcutta High Court Dismisses CAPF Aspirant's Plea
The Calcutta High Court, on Wednesday (January 21), dismissed the petition filed by an aspirant of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) challenging the review medical examination that declared him unfit for service. The bench held that while a candidate has a right to review, the removal of a tattoo after the detailed medical examination but before the review medical examination, to be...
The Calcutta High Court, on Wednesday (January 21), dismissed the petition filed by an aspirant of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) challenging the review medical examination that declared him unfit for service.
The bench held that while a candidate has a right to review, the removal of a tattoo after the detailed medical examination but before the review medical examination, to be declared medically fit, is impermissible.
The bench noted that the petitioner had a tattoo on his body when the medical examination occurred on November 29, 2025. He subsequently removed his tattoo before the review medical examination that was conducted on December 4, 2025.
The bench of Justice Sugata Bhattacharya reiterated,
"If there is an anomaly in Detailed Medical Examination candidate has a right to prefer review before the concerned medical board but removal of tattoo after Detailed Medical Examination and prior to Review Medical Examination in pursuit of being declared medically fit is found to be not permissible".
The petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Constable (GD) and appeared for the Detailed Medical Examination on November 29, 2025, when he was declared unfit due to the presence of a tattoo on his right arm.
Subsequently, the petitioner underwent a procedure to remove the tattoo on December 1, 2025 and appeared for a Review Medical Examination on December 4, 2025. However, the medical board again declared him unfit, noting the presence of a tattoo and superficial burn mark.
The bench rejected the cases submitted by the petitioner in support of his arguments. The court noted that the cited cases do not apply in the present case as the tattoo had been removed prior to the first medical examination, whereas this was not the situation in the present case.
The present case, the bench noted, was governed by the CAPF medical guidelines of May 2015. The court also held that the Supreme Court's cases in Dharmvir Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, which involved the medical condition of deviated nasal septum, had no application to cases involving tattoo-related disqualification.
The court relied heavily on its earlier judgment in the case of Rahul Bari v Union of India, where it was held that a candidate's medical fitness must be assessed based on the condition existing on the date of the detailed medical examination.
The court reiterated that while a candidate has the right to seek a review of the medical examination, altering physical conditions after the detailed medical examination to secure fitness in the review medical examination is not permissible.
Therefore, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Jhantu Sarkar v Union of India [WP 29359 OF 2025]
For Petitioner: Advocates Tanuka Basu, Shamayem Fasih, Tanmoy Chakraborty and Akash Das
For Union: Advocates Samarjit Roy Chaudhury, Rahul Sarkar, Dipika Sarkar and Swarnwarshi Poddar