Observing that a candidate’s medical fitness must be assessed with reference to the condition existing on the date of the detailed medical examination, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) aspirant who sought appointment after removing a tattoo post medical examination.
“If there is an anomaly in Detailed Medical Examination candidate has a right to prefer review before the concerned medical board but removal of tattoo after Detailed Medical Examination and prior to Review Medical Examination in pursuit of being declared medically fit is found to be not permissible,” the court said on January 21, referring to its own verdict dated January 2 in a similar matter.
The Calcutta High Court said that the removal of tattoo after detailed medical examination and prior to review medical examination in pursuit of being declared medically fit is not permissible. (Image enhanced using AI)
Observations
In the present case, the petitioner appeared in the detailed medical examination (DME) on November 29, 2025 with a tattoo.
Removed the tattoo on December 1, 2025 and appeared for review medical examination (RME) on December 4, 2025.
The health condition of the candidate including tattoo marks needs to be assessed considering the situation which was existing on the date of detailed medical examination.
Removal of tattoo after detailed medical examination and prior to review medical examination in pursuit of being declared medically fit is not permissible.
Story continues below this ad
The facts of the present case were identical to Rahul Bari on January 2 this year where the court had already declined relief.
The Delhi High Court decision in Deepak Yadav case in 2024 was based on different recruitment guidelines, and in that case the tattoo had been removed before the first medical examination, not after.
The Supreme Court’s order in Dharmvir Singh case in 2019 related to a medical condition requiring expert reassessment and had no application to tattoo-related disqualification.
Background
The petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for appointment as a general duty constable under the CAPFs.
Story continues below this ad
As part of the selection process, he underwent a DME on November 29, 2025.
During the DME, medical authorities declared him unfit after noticing the presence of a tattoo on his right forearm, which was impermissible under the revised guidelines for recruitment medical examination in CAPFs and Assam Rifles (May 2015).
Subsequently, the petitioner underwent tattoo removal therapy on December 1, 2025, and appeared before the RME on December 4, 2025.
However, the review medical board again declared him unfit, noting the presence of a superficial burn mark on the right forearm caused by the removal process.
Story continues below this ad
Challenging the review medical report dated December 4, 2025, Sarkar approached the high court seeking a direction to the authorities to consider him for appointment.
Petitioner’s arguments
Advocates Tanuka Basu, Shamayem Fasih, Tanmoy Chakraborty and Akash Das, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the tattoo had already been removed prior to the review medical examination.
The counsel submitted that the rejection was overly technical and defeated the purpose of review.
The counsel submitted that the medical authorities should consider the candidate’s fitness at the stage of review of the medical examination and not rigidly adhere to the condition existing on the date of the first examination.
Story continues below this ad
Centre’s stand
Advocates Samarjit Roy Chaudhury, Rahul Sarkar, Dipika Sarkar and Swarnwarshi Poddar, appearing for the Centre opposed the petition.
They submitted that the petitioner admittedly had a tattoo on November 29, 2025, the date of the detailed medical examination.
The counsel said that medical eligibility must be judged as per the condition prevailing on the date of the DME.
Subsequent removal of a tattoo cannot improve a candidate’s position in review medical examination, said the counsel.
Story continues below this ad
They argued that the issue was squarely covered by a recent judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated January 2, 2026, in Rahul Bari v Union of India & Ors., involving identical facts.
Allowing such post-examination corrections would undermine the uniformity and integrity of the recruitment process, submitted the counsel.
Decision
The court dismissed the plea holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be considered fit for appointment as constable under CAPFs.
The Calcutta High Court said that the removal of tattoo after detailed medical examination and prior to review medical examination in pursuit of being declared medically fit is not permissible. (Image enhanced using AI)
