CISF Examination 2019: Rajasthan HC Directs Centre To Keep A Post Vacant For Candidate Suffering From Cubitus Valgu And Having Tattoo Mark

After hearing the petitioner on interim relief, Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal ruled, "Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material on record, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the respondents to keep a post vacant in pursuance of examination, 2019, till further orders."

In the present case, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected even after remaining successful in all phases of the Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFS and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF Examination, 2019. The rejection of the petitioner was made on two grounds. The first ground of rejection was that he is suffering from Cubitus Valgus without specifying its degree. The second ground assigned for rejecting his candidature is the tattoo mark on his right forearm.

The petitioner rebutted that as per the certificate issued by the SMS Medical College, his carrying angle is below 15 degree which is under the permissible limit. As per the Clause-7 of the guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles issued by the Union Home Ministry (Police Division-II), the permissible limit of carrying angle is upto 20 degrees.

The petitioner further submitted that as per medical certificate issued by a subject expert, his tattoo mark is not visible and he has been declared medically fit. He relied on the case of Amit Kumar Bhambhu Vs. The Union of India & Ors., which involved identical controversy and whereby, this Court has been pleased to grant interim relief while issuing notice.

Tattoo Controversies

In 2018, the Bombay High Court granted relief to a man declared unfit for the post of constable/driver in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as he had a tattoo.

The Court held, "So far as the post for which the petitioner tendered application completely debars a candidate and holds him medically unfit if any tattoo mark is found on his body, merely because the post claimed by the petitioner is subordinate to the post of Sub-Inspector, different parameters in respect of medical fitness cannot be applied. The religious sentiments of a citizen shall have to be given a due weightage and specially while making recruitment to a higher post such exceptions are made, there was no reason for the employer to apply the same parameters and hold the petitioner ineligible. Apart from this, there is no dispute that the tattoo in question has been removed to the extent of 90%."

In another case of 2017, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order declaring a candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force as unfit due to tattoos and asked them to allow the candidate to participate in the final selection process.