[CAPF Recruitment] Medical Board Shouldn't Examine Candidate Immediately After Few Days Of Tattoo Removal Surgery: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has directed a re-examination of a CAPF candidate who was declared unfit even after tattoo removal surgery. It held that the Review Medical Board should not have examined the candidate immediately after a few days of surgery and should have given sufficient time to him to ensure the healing of the scar. The bench held that: “It is true that the advertisement clearly states that the candidates need to fulfill all eligibility conditions before even applying for the post in question. However, it is the case of Mr. Mehta that the petitioner has got his tattoo removed which was present on the front side of the right forearm only after he realizes that he successfully cleared the written examination. So, in that sense, the petitioner may be called as fencesitter, but the fact remains that the petitioner got his tattoo removed from the right forearm.” Brief Facts: The Petitioner applied for the position of Assistant Commandant (Group A) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) following an advertisement. The Petitioner contended that after undergoing surgery to remove a tattoo from his right forearm, he successfully cleared the written examination. Subsequently, during the Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and Medical Standard Test (MST) conducted by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) at the 39 Battalion in Noida, the Petitioner was found unfit due to the presence of a tattoo of 'OM' in Hindi on his right forearm. Following this, the Petitioner applied for a Review Medical Examination (RME) and underwent another tattoo removal surgery on the same day. Despite this, during the RME conducted the Petitioner was again declared unfit due to an unhealed or unhealthy scar on the ventral surface of his right forearm. On April 20, 2024, a subsequent medical examination revealed that no residue of the tattoo was visible. Therefore, the Petitioner argued that the medical board's conclusion of unfitness was misconceived and untenable. Conversely, the Ministry Of Home Affairs argued that the advertisement clearly stipulated eligibility conditions which included the allowance of tattoos only on traditional sites such as the inner aspect of the left forearm or dorsum of the hands. Since the Petitioner's tattoo was on the front side of his right forearm, it did not meet the stipulated conditions. Observations by the High Court: The High Court recognized that the advertisement mandated candidates to fulfill all eligibility conditions before applying for the position. However, it considered the Petitioner's situation unique because he removed the tattoo from his right forearm only after successfully passing the written examination. The Tattoo Clause in the guidelines allowed tattoos depicting religious symbols or figures and names and permitted tattoos on the inner aspect of the left forearm or the dorsum of the hands, but not the saluting limb. The High Court noted that post-surgery, no tattoo was present on the Petitioner's forearm. Importantly, the Tattoo Clause did not explicitly state that an unhealthy or unhealed scar resulting from tattoo removal would disqualify a candidate. However, the High Court acknowledged the Medical Board's rationale in examining the scar to ensure the visible part of the hand was clear for saluting purposes. This justification was valid, yet the Review Medical Board should not have assessed the Petitioner so soon after the surgery. The High Court found that sufficient healing time should have been provided before determining fitness. The High Court held that the Petitioner's forearm needed re-examination to ascertain the current state of the scar. Therefore, the High Court directed that Respondents re-examine the Petitioner's forearm with a new Medical Board to determine if the scar from the tattoo removal had completely healed and left no tattoo residue. If the new Medical Board's assessment favored the Petitioner, the Respondents were instructed to consider his appointment to the position of Assistant Commandant, subject to vacancy availability. Case Title: Akshay Choudhary Vs Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 631 Case Number: W.P.(C) 5602/2024 Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Mehta Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, CGSC with Mr. Chetan Jadon, GP with Ms. Shivangi Jadon and Ms. Hemlata Singh, Advocates for R-1 and 3. Click Here To Read/Download Order or Judgment

[CAPF Recruitment] Medical Board Shouldn't Examine Candidate Immediately After Few Days Of Tattoo Removal Surgery: Delhi High Court

Rajesh Kumar

Tags