Court upholds order denying promotion to CRPF inspectors over tattoo on saluting arm

“The existence of tattoos which are not permissible as per the revised guidelines is not disputed by the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners were ineligible to be considered for promotion as assistant commandant through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). Even if the petitioners have now had the tattoos removed, they can reap no benefit from the same in the present proceedings, and they may apply for the next examination,” the July 1 order read.

Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan pointed out that the petitioners possessed a tattoo on the right forearm, which is not permissible as per the rules.

Passed tests but unfit

It was placed on record that one of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel, Ankit, joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) at the post of sub-inspector in February 2012, whereas the other petitioner, Amit, joined the CRPF at the post of constable on April 26, 2010. Subsequently, the petitioners in the respective petitions alleged that they were promoted to the rank of inspector in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Thereafter, while in service, the petitioners allegedly applied for selection to the post of assistant commandant in CAPFs through the limited departmental competitive examination 2023. The petitioners appeared for the written examination on June 30, 2024 and also cleared the same, as evident from the list of candidates issued by the authorities on July 13, 2024.

After passing the written examination, the petitioners claimed that they participated in the physical standard test as well as the physical efficiency test. It was further added that on July 29, 2024, the petitioners were found fit in both tests. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared for a detailed medical examination in August 2024. However, they were allegedly found unfit on account of a tattoo on the right forearm.

Following the same, the petitioners applied for a review medical examination, which was conducted on the next day. In the review medical examination report, the petitioners were again found unfit for the reason that they had a tattoo on their right forearm. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions.

Tattoos permitted only on specified body parts: Court

• The court noted that the rules do not stipulate an embargo on having a tattoo but only provide the permissible location, content and size of the tattoo.
• It was pointed out that the petitioners possessed a tattoo on the right forearm, which is not permissible as per the rules.
• The court found that allowing the petitions filed by the petitioners would adversely impact the already selected and appointed candidates.
• Considering the revised guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2015, the court held that the petitioners do not deserve the desired relief.
• The court mentioned that the fault cannot be attributed to the authorities merely because the review medical examination was conducted on the next day.
• The court added that the petitioners, who are already members of the disciplinary force, cannot be permitted to plead ignorance of revised medical guidelines, more particularly when they are seeking selection to the post of assistant commandant through LDCE.

No bar on having tattoo

Arguing for the petitioners, advocate Ankur Chhibber argued that the ground taken by the authorities to declare his clients as unfit is not tenable because the advertisement issued by them nowhere provided for a bar on having a tattoo on any part of the body.

He submitted that the relevant guidelines provide for the determination of the permissibility of a tattoo, but nowhere mention that having a tattoo, by itself, would constitute a ground for unfitness of the candidate.

He further submitted that the review medical board was convened only one day after the medical examination was conducted and the same prevented the petitioners from removing any imperfection that rendered them unfit.

It was contended that the petitioners were already serving as inspectors in the CRPF when they applied for LDCE 2023.

He added that during the course of their service, having a tattoo never posed any challenge or setback, and the same became a ground for rejection only when the petitioners applied for the higher post of assistant commandant. He added that even otherwise, the petitioners have promptly undergone surgery and have had the tattoo removed.

He prayed that since the petitioners have already removed the tattoo, the authorities be directed to constitute a review medical board to re-examine the case of the petitioners.

Vacancies are already filled

Representing the state, advocate Vinod Sawant argued that the vacancies for the said post against which the advertisement was issued have already been filled and, as such, no substantive relief can be granted to the petitioners.

He, however, submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners was in accordance with the relevant revised medical guidelines.

He submitted that the rules do not bar the conduct of the review medical examination on the next day itself and contended that the authorities cannot be faulted for conducting the review medical examination on the next day itself.