The Calcutta High Court has flagged that the recruitment medical guidelines prescribe healing periods for certain disabilities but are silent on the healing period for a superficial burn caused by removal of a tattoo, directing an independent Medical Board at AIIMS Kalyani to examine a BSF recruitment candidate on the issue.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Partha Pratim Roy and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty passed the direction while hearing an appeal filed by Jhantu Sarkar against a January 21, 2026 judgment of the Single Bench in WPA 29359 of 2025.

Sarkar had challenged the findings of the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) Board dated December 1, 2025 and the Review Medical Examination (RME) Board dated December 4, 2025. He was initially declared unfit by the DME on the ground of "tattoo right forearm". After subsequently undergoing therapy to remove the tattoo, he appeared before the RME, which found him unfit on account of "tattoo and superficial burn present".

Before the Division Bench, Sarkar's counsel relied on the Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles. It was argued that the Guidelines contemplate a healing period for certain disabilities and that a scar mark or burn injury below the prescribed threshold could not result in outright rejection without examining whether it required treatment or interfered with wearing combatised clothing.

The Union of India opposed the appeal, submitting that Clause 11(3) of the Guidelines specifically permits tattoos only on the left forearm, being the non-saluting limb, and that a tattoo on the right forearm was therefore a disqualification. It was further submitted that after the tattoo was removed, Sarkar had a superficial burn on the right forearm, on the basis of which the RME had also declared him unfit.

The Bench noted that Clause 11(3) permits tattoos on traditional sites such as the inner aspect of the forearm, but only on the left forearm, being the non-saluting limb, subject to the prescribed size restriction.

However, the Court found that Sarkar had removed the tattoo before the RME and that the Board had found only a "superficial burn" on his right forearm.

The Bench specifically noted that the Guidelines prescribe healing periods ranging from one to six months for disabilities covered under Clause 11(4), but contain no corresponding healing period for "a superficial burn" resulting from tattoo removal.

"The guidelines also provide for a healing period in respect of the disabilities incorporated in Clause 11(4) ranging from 1 month to 6 months. However, in respect of 'a superficial burn' occurred due to removal of tattoo, no healing period has been provided," the Court observed.

The Bench further observed that the issue appeared to have been overlooked by the Single Bench, which had returned no finding on the same.

"Prima facie, the said issue, as urged, was glossed over by the learned single Judge and no finding was returned on the same," the Court said.

For determining the issue, the High Court directed the Executive Director of AIIMS, Kalyani, to constitute a Medical Board comprising a dermatologist and examine Sarkar.

The Board has been asked to determine whether the burn injury on Sarkar's right forearm would constitute a permanent mark and whether it would heal completely without leaving a burn mark. It has also been directed to indicate, if complete healing is possible, the approximate time required for such healing.

The Court directed AIIMS Kalyani to complete the exercise by the end of October 2026 and file its report before the Court.

The Executive Director has also been directed to intimate Sarkar about the date of examination and inform the Deputy Inspector General (Communication) for IG, BSF, South Bengal Frontier, so that a representative of the respondents may remain present.

The appeal has been listed for further consideration on November 17.

Case: Jhantu Sarkar - Versus - The Union of India & Ors.