"Consider Candidature If Religious Tattoo Is Removed": Allahabad HC To UOI, Grants Relief To BSF Head Constable (RO) Candidate

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava directed the Centre that if the petitioner/candidate removes the tattoo in question, then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which he had applied.

The case in brief

Essentially, the petitioner was qualified to be appointed to the posts in question and he was also declared successful in the result.

After that, he appeared for his 2nd phase examination which is documentation, PST and PET and in that phase as well, he was declared successful, however, in the medical examination, he was found unfit due to the tattoo in question.

He moved the HC contending that the Tattoo has been removed, however, the said information was never provided by the petitioner to the competent authority and as such the prayer for the review medical board was not accepted to date.

It was contended by his counsel that the petitioner had prayed that if an opportunity were provided, he would have removed the tattoos and thereafter the review medical examination could again be done on the petitioner.

On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the Union of India opposed the prayer mentioned in the petition on the ground that whatever rules and regulations pertaining to the Indian Army for rejection of the candidature, if any aspirant is having Tattoo on any part of the body the same has been followed by the Border Security Force also and as such the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.

He however, submitted that so far as the removal of tattoos is concerned, the respondents would be bound by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court [Vihaan Nagar vs. Union of India & Ors] wherein it was held that if the tattoo was removed, then a review medical could always be done in which the petitioner could be found fit for selection.

Under such circumstances, a direction was issued by the Court to the centre that if the petitioner's tattoo is removed then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial post for which the petitioner had applied.

“However, if the petitioner had any disability which according to the respondents were permanent in nature, then he may not be considered. The review medical board shall complete this exercise within a period of two months,” the Court added as it partly allowed the writ petition.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Binod Kumar Mishra, Atul Kumar Dubey

Counsel for Respondent: A. N. Roy A.S.G.I.

Case Title - Himanshu Kumar vs. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 8063 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 158

Click Here To Read/Download