Tattoo Scar Should Not Be The Basis For Disqualification, Opportunity Must Be Given To The Candidate To Remove It, Delhi High Court Reiterates
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia reiterated that any person with a tattoo should be given an opportunity to have the tattoo removed in a time bound manner and a scar from the tattoo should not be a reason to disqualify such candidate. BACKGROUND The Respondent appeared in the examination for the post of...
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia reiterated that any person with a tattoo should be given an opportunity to have the tattoo removed in a time bound manner and a scar from the tattoo should not be a reason to disqualify such candidate.
BACKGROUND
The Respondent appeared in the examination for the post of Constable Male conducted by Staff Selection Commission. He qualified the examination as well as Physical Endurance and Measurement Test conducted by the Delhi Police. The document verification was also done on the day when the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test was held.
The Detailed Medical Examination (DME) of the Respondent was conducted and he was declared unfit because he had a tattoo mark depicting religious symbol of (OM) on his right forearm.
Later the Review Medical Board conducted the Review Medical Examination on 20.01.2024 and the Respondent was declared unfit again because of the tattoo.
As a result, the Respondent could not make his place in the selection list. Challenging the order of the Review Medical Board dated 20.01.2024, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal cited its decision in the case titled Deepak Yadav Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., and allowed the Respondent (Petitioner in OA) to join services after tattoo removal as he was eligible for the post in all the other aspects,
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Staff Selection Commission approached the High Court.
Contentions of the Parties:
The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Tribunal did not consider that the advertisement and the standing order of the Delhi High Court explicitly prohibited tattoo on the right arm of the police personnel.
It was submitted that Rules of appointment and terms of the advertisement were to be followed and any deviations could not be allowed. The Counsel further argued that the Tribunal did not consider that within a disciplined force, a person with a tattoo on his saluting arm would be deemed unfit for service.
Meanwhile, the Respondent submitted that there was no merit in the petition and deserved dismissal.
Findings of the Court:
The Court referred to its earlier decision in “Staff Selection Commission & Ors Vs. Deepak Yadav”, wherein it had held;
“when any candidate having a tattoo on his/her forearm and entering in the selection process of any Force, including Delhi Police, which is objectionable to the Selection Board; then opportunity has to be granted to such a candidate to get the tattoo removed, within a time bound manner. Despite, if he or she still does not get the tattoo removed, his or her candidature is liable to be rejected.”
The Court physically observed the arm of the Respondent and held that the tattoo had already been removed. Additionally, the mark could not even be seen from the naked eye. Observing that the candidate was eligible for appointment in all aspects and that the tattoo had been removed surgically and wasn't even visible, the Court dismissed the Petition and directed the petitioners to allow the respondent to join the training.
Case Title: STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. Versus BHUPENDRA SINGH
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1102
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms. Neha Yadav, Advocate and SI Vikash Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Setu Niket, Ms. Unni Maya S., Mr. Ishan Singh and Ms. Chetna, Advocates