"Consider Candidature If Religious Tattoos Are Removed": Allahabad HC Directs Centre, Grants Relief To SSB Exam Candidates
In a relief to 3 candidates who participated in the 2018 Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) recruitment process but were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm), the Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Government to consider their candidature if they remove their tattoos.The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma directed the Centre and the SSB...
In a relief to 3 candidates who participated in the 2018 Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) recruitment process but were denied employment on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm), the Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Government to consider their candidature if they remove their tattoos.
The Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma directed the Centre and the SSB that if the petitioners' tattoos are removed then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which the petitioners had applied.
The case in brief
Essentially, petitioners Avneesh Kumar and 2 others appeared in the examination for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) [notified in July 2018]. The petitioners were declared successful in the result which was declared in May 2021. The petitioners appeared for their typing test and were declared successful in the typing test also on September 17, 2021.
Further, when their medical examination was done on November 13, 2021, they were found physically fit but on account of certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands, they were denied employment.
The review medical test of the petitioners was conducted on 17.11.2021 and allegedly, without giving them an opportunity to cure the tattoo on their right-hand forearm, they were declared to be unfit on the ground of tattoos.
Further, after the removal of the tattoo, they made representations before the respondents, however, to date no action on the representation of the petitioners has been taken by the respondents, and therefore, they moved the instant plea before the High Court.
The petitioner no.1-Avneesh Kumar was declared unfit on account of the fact that he had a tattoo mark on his right forearm. The petitioner no.2-Mohit Kumar was also declared unfit on account of the fact that he had a tattoo mark on the right forearm.
The petitioner no.3-Gaurav Kumar was declared unfit for having a tattoo mark on his right forearm and also for a reason that he had extensive tenia Versicolor on his back shoulder.
Submissions put forth
The contention of counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners had prayed that if an opportunity was provided, they would have removed the tattoos, and thereafter the review medical examination could again be done on the petitioners.
They also relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in Service Bench No.1129 of 2013 (Vihaan Nagar vs. Union of India & Ors.) in November 2013, wherein it was ordered that if tattoos were removed then a review medical could always be done in which the petitioners could be found fit for selection.
In response to this, the Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that so far as the removal of tattoos is concerned, the respondents would be bound by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court, however, he submitted that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 who were also having Myopia and extensive tenia Versicolor on the back shoulder would be considered for employment only if those diseases were no longer there.
Court's order
Under such circumstances, the Court issued a direction that if the petitioners' tattoos are removed then that particular disability may not be considered as an obstacle for selection on the ministerial posts for which the petitioners had applied.
"However, if the petitioner nos.2 and 3 had any disability which according to the respondents were permanent in nature, then they may not be considered. The review medical board shall complete this exercise within a period of two months," the Court further ordered as it partly allowed the plea.
Advocates Binod Kumar Mishra and Ajay Kumar Rai appeared for the petitioners.
Case title - Avneesh Kumar And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others Case citation:2022 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Click here to Read/Download Order