'Should Have Removed Tattoo Before Recruitment Process': Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea Of Candidate Seeking BSF Job

The petitioner had applied for the post in July and had cleared all the examinations. Thereafter, he was called for the 'Medical Examination' on November 17, where he was declared 'unfit' in view of the tattoo. Upon removal of the tattoo, he appeared for the 'Review Medical Examination' but was again declared unfit.

He prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring him 'fit' in the 'Medical Examination' as he had already undergone the tattoo removal process. It was argued that being a resident of a rural village, it was customary and traditional to get a tattoo on the body. Since the tattoo was only 2 or 3 centimeters in size, he contended that his case should be reconsidered.

Justice A.S. Supehia, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner after referring to the advertisement for the post, said:

"The petitioner was already having tattoo, after he had undergone the recruitment process. As per the Review Examination Board, the tattoo was found on the right forearm of the petitioner depicting a heart and arrow with initials 'M' and he was declared unfit. The tattoo should have been removed prior to the recruitment process and the same must have faded substantially. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim appointment in the Disciplined Force, after removal of his tattoo, that too after undergoing the recruitment process."

The Court referred to the norms published by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Directorate General Border Security Force) in the detailed advertisement, as per which in case of a candidate who has undergone removal process of tattoo "prior to appearing in the recruitment process," the same would be treated as a scar and not a tattoo, provided the same has faded substantially.

The Court noted that it was only in such cases that a candidate could be permitted to undergo the entire selection process with the approval of the Presiding Officer of the Recruitment Board.

The Court, accordingly, said that:

"Infirmity cannot be subsequently cured in order to dilute the provision of the advertisement. The candidate, as per the provision as mentioned hereinabove, prior to participation in the recruitment process should have undergone the process of removal of tattoo resulting into its fading substantially and only such removal of tattoo can be treated as a scar and not tattoo. The petitioner cannot claim appointment to the aforesaid post contrary to the conditions envisaged in the advertisement."

Case Title: Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India

Citation: R/Special Civil Application No. 24720 of 2022

Coram: Justice A.S. Supehia

Click Here To Read/Download the Order