Abraded Lesions On Hand After Tattoo Removal Does Not Make Candidate Unfit For CAPF Unless It Has Potential To Interfere With Working: JKL High Court

The observations were made by Justice Sanjeev Kumar while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had called into question the findings of the Review Medical Board in terms of which he had been declared unfit for the post of Constable in BSF.

The petitioner had been selected to the post of Constable in BSF, whereafter he was called for Medical Examination. During the course of medical examination, he was declared medically unfit as some tattoo marks were found on his arms.

After getting the tattoos removed, the petitioner applied for a review medical examination, as prescribed under rules, furnishing a certificate from a Dermatologist. However, the Review MedicalBoard again declared him unfit on the ground that there were scar marks on his saluting arm.

Contesting the plea the respondents argued that the certificate obtained by the petitioner from Civil Doctor is general in nature, as according to the said Doctor, the petitioner may be fit to serve in civil Department because of nature of duties to be performed in civil job which are entirely different from the nature of duties of the Armed Forces.

Respondents further submitted that as per the findings of the Review Medical Board surgical removal of the tattoos may develop keloids i.e an overgrowth of scar tissue that may develop around a wound sometimes producing a lump many times larger than the original scar, as such, the petitioner was declared unfit.

After considering the rival contentions Justice Kumar observed that as per the opinion given by the Civil Medical Practitioner, who is a Dermatologist, there was no evidence of tattoo at the examined site. The opinion of the Medical Practitioner, who is a specialist in Dermatology/skin diseases, is that the petitioner is medically fit for the post of a Constable GD, the court recorded.

Pointing out to the findings of the review medical examination conducted by the Review Medical Board, the court said that only abraded lesions over right hand and right forearm were found by the examining Doctors and the petitioner was declared unfit without giving any reason as to how abraded lesions over the right hand and right forearm are likely to interfere in the performances of duties of Constable GD.

Acknowledging the recruitment medical examination in CAPF and Assam Rifles Guidelines 2015 on the subject which prohibit tattoo beyond the prescribed size on the impermissible areas and render a candidate unfit to be appointed as Constable GD in CAPF, the court however observed,

"I am at a loss to understand as to how mere abraded lesions on the hand or forearm would, in any way, interfere in the performances of duties of a Constable GD. It is not the case of the respondents, nor is there any expert opinion that the Review Medical Board has detected any congenital or acquired anomalies of the skin which have the effect of interfering with the functions of a Constable GD".

Highlighting the Clause 4 of Chapter XII of the 2015 guidelines which deal with Postoperative cases (duration of fitness) the court said that the Doctors, who examined the petitioner in the Review Medical Board, had not found any of the conditions laid down in sub-clause (4) that would render him unfit for the service. Mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm, which does not have any potentiality to interfere with the working of a Constable GD, cannot be made a ground to declare a candidate unfit for service in CAPF, the court underscored.

Allowing the petition the court directed the directed the respondents to convene a revised Medical Board and re-examine the petitioner and if he is found to be fit to perform the duties of a Constable GD in terms of the revised Guidelines of 2015, and the observations made above, he be offered appointment.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 34

Coram: Justice Sanjeev Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order