Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Man From ITBP Recruitment For Having Tattoo On Right Saluting Arm
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld the rejection of a man against the post of Constable (Driver) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) for the reason of him having a tattoo on his right saluting arm. "This Court is of the view that the stipulation of disqualification of tattoo on the right arm is a classification that is based on an intelligible differentia and the...
The Delhi High Court has recently upheld the rejection of a man against the post of Constable (Driver) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) for the reason of him having a tattoo on his right saluting arm.
"This Court is of the view that the stipulation of disqualification of tattoo on the right arm is a classification that is based on an intelligible differentia and the intelligible differentia has a rationale relation to the object sought to be achieved, namely, that the tattoo is visible while saluting. Consequently, the petitioner's candidature has been rightly rejected," Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla observed.
It was the petitioner's case that after applying for the post of Constable (Driver) under OBC category and successfully being qualified PET/PST, written test and documentation and practical (skill) test, he was called for a detailed medical examination wherein he was declared unfit on the ground of a tattoo embossed on his right arm.
It was therefore submitted that the tattoo mark on the his right arm was his own name and did not cause any prejudice to anyone for the reason of it being within the permissible limits as provided under the rules.
Furthermore , it was submitted that none of the government guidelines prohibited tattoo as a medical disqualification and that the requirements laid down by the respondent authorities were not in accordance with the norms followed by the Indian Army.
The Court perused the said advertisement of 2018 which provided for the permissible categories of tattoos. According to the advertisement, Tattoos marked on traditional sites on the body like inner aspect of forearm but only left forearm, being non saluting limb or dorsum of the hands were to be allowed.
"The petitioner admittedly has a tattoo on his right arm, which is the saluting arm. Consequently, the petitioner is not eligible as per Clause 4.4(iv)(b) of the Advertisement," the Court said.
The Court also opined that the petitioner's reliance on the Indian Army policy was misconceived as he had sought recruitment in ITBP and the advertisement on the basis of which he had applied contained the disqualification in Clause 4.4(iv).
"Having participated in the advertisement without demur the petitioner cannot challenge the said disqualification at this stage," the Court said while dismissing the plea.
Title: VIKASH KUMAR v. DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDO-TIBETAN BOARDER POLICE FORCE & ORS.