News Updates

Bombay HC Sets Aside Order Declaring Candidate For Sub-Inspector Post Unfit Due To His Tattoos [Read Judgment]

Nitish Kashyap
14 Aug 2017 5:17 PM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court has set aside an order declaring a candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force as unfit due to tattoos and asked them to allow the candidate to participate in the final selection process.

A bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice ZA Haq was hearing a writ petition filed by one Sangharsh Lonekar.

Lonekar had appeared in a written examination conducted for the post of Sub-Inspector in the CISF in 2016.

After clearing the written exam, he was subjected to medical tests and the medical examiner opined that Lonekar was unfit as there were tattoo marks of size about 4 x 5 cm over front of his left forearm and 29 x 4.5 cm over his right arm. This opinion was also upheld by a panel of experts.

Appearing for the petitioner, Anupam Chattopadhyay submitted that the advertisement for the said post in 2016 did not carry any mention of tattoos; however, the 2017 advertisement did define the nature of depiction in form of a tattoo that would be permitted.

It was also submitted that the petitioner is in the process of getting his tattoos removed and would be able to get them removed to the extent of 60 per cent.

Accepting the arguments submitted by the petitioner’s lawyer, the court allowed the petition. However, it took an assurance from the petitioner to give an undertaking that he will make efforts to get his tattoo marks removed in order to fulfil all the conditions. The medical report declaring the petitioner as unfit was set aside.

Read the Judgment Here


Next Story