Read Time: 06 minutes
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held, “The petitioner, already being a member of the Armed Forces, should have known that the presence of a tattoo on the outer surface of the left forearm is prohibited. In spite of this, he has one”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, denied relief to a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) candidate who had a tattoo on the outer surface of his left forearm. The court noted that the candidate was aware of the prohibition but still failed to comply with the prescribed guidelines, leading to the rejection of his plea.
The petitioner submitted this petition to contest the findings of the Review Medical Examination (RME), as detailed in the report dated 28.11.2024, which declared the petitioner “unfit” for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for the year 2022.
Advocate Rajat Arora, for the petitioner, relied on the judgment of Staff Selection Commission and Others v Deepak Yadav [2024 SCC OnLine Del 5162]. It was argued that since the tattoo could be easily removed, the respondents should have allowed the petitioner time to have it removed before conducting the RME.
Special Public Council Vatsal Joshi, for the respondents, contended that the “Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs: Amendment thereof” dated 31.05.2021 explicitly permitted tattoos on the left forearm only if they were on the inner aspect. He further stated that the petitioner, being a member of the Armed Forces, was aware of this condition but nonetheless had a tattoo on the outer surface of the left forearm, making him ineligible for further relief from this Court.
Referring to the supreme court judgment in the case of Pavnesh Kumar v Union of India & Ors [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1583], the court emphasized that while appointments to higher posts through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for individuals serving in lower posts constituted a form of accelerated promotion, they could not be equated with the regular mode of promotion. Consequently, applicants were required to fulfill all the conditions specified in the advertisement for the post in question.
“The applicant, therefore, has to comply with all conditions of the advertisement seeking candidature for the post advertised”, the court outlined.
In this case, the court noted that the petitioner already serving as a member of the Armed Forces was expected to be aware that having a tattoo on the outer surface of the left forearm was prohibited. Despite this knowledge, the petitioner bore such a tattoo. Although, in certain respects, the petitioner could be treated as a direct recruit, they could not claim the same standard of equity as would apply to a direct or fresh recruit who might lack awareness of the rigorous medical standards enforced in the Armed Forces.
In light of the aforementioned considerations, the court found no merit in the petition. Consequently, the petition, along with the pending application, was dismissed.
For Petitioner: Advocates Rajat Arora and Niraj KumarFor Respondent: Special Public Council Vatsal Joshi with Advocate Hussain TaqviCase Title: Gedela Chandra Sekhara Rao v Union Of India (2024:DHC:9646-DB)
Please Login or Register
