Bombay High Court
Mr. Ravikumar Subhashrao Karad vs Union Of India Through Secretary, ... on 20 June, 2019
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H.Dangre
1/5 907 WP 6784-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6784 OF 2019
Mr.Ravikumar Subhashrao Karad .. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others. .. Respondents
...
Learned Advocate Mr. S.P.Kadam instructed by Sneha Bhange for
the petitioner.
Learned Advocate Mr. D.A.Dube alongwith Ms.Carina and
Mr.J.J.Jaibhave for respondents.
CORAM: SHRI RANJIT MORE &
SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
DATED : 20th JUNE 2019 P.C:-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Medical Board of respondent No.2 declaring him unfit on being examined on 14/05/2019 wherein the petitioner has been declared unfit on account of a tattoo on his forearm which has inscribed the word "Aai". The petitioner is a candidate who has participated in the examination process conducted by the Central Armed Police Forces for the post of "Assistant Commandant". He has cleared the obstacle of written Wakodikar ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 01:34:42 ::: 2/5 907 WP 6784-19.doc examination, physical efficiency examination and now he is at the stage of undergoing an interview which is scheduled to commence from 24/06/2019. the petitioner was subjected to medical examination on 06/03/2019, but was declared unfit on two counts being overweight by 6.5 k.g. and on account of tattoo on right arm.
The petitioner, thereafter, had applied for review medical examination as he reduced the excess weight and he also approached the Plastic Surgeon to remove the tattoo. It is the case of the petitioner that he has initiated the lessor treatment for removal of tattoo. However, it requires multiple sessions and therefore, the tattoo could be removed only till 90%. The petitioner was thereafter, referred to the Medical Board of respondent No.1 and once again in its report dated 14/05/2019, the Board declared the petitioner unfit on account of "tattoo on right arm - 2 c.m."
2. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, an advertisement issued by the respondent No.1 prescribes the illegibility criteria and had also set out the general standards of illegibility. He placed reliance on clause (iv) which is captioned as 'Tattoo' clause which reads thus :-
"(vi) Tattoo Clause :
(a) Content : Being a secular country, the religious Wakodikar ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 01:34:42 ::: 3/5 907 WP 6784-19.doc sentiments of our countrymen are to be respected and thus, tattoos depicting religious symbol or figures and the name, as followed in Indian Army are to be permitted.
(b) Location : Tattoos marked on traditional sites of the body like inner aspect of forearm but only left forearm, being non saluting limb or dorsum of the hands are to be allowed.
(c) Size : Size must be less than ¼ of the particular part (Elbow or Hand) of the body."
3. The petitioner has also placed on record at Exh.J - a photograph showing the tattoo. On perusal of the advertisement, it can be seen that the tattoo is permitted on the traditional sites of the body like inner aspect of the forearm with a further restriction that this is permitted only on left forearm. The reason for permitting tattoo only on the forearm and that too on the left arm also finds place in clause
(b) as the said arm is the non-saluting limb or dorsum of the hands. The reason for permitting the tattoo also finds place in clause 9b) and it is stated that the left forearm being the non-saluting limb, tattoo is allowed on the left forearm or dorsum of the hands. The size of the tattoo must be less than ¼ of the particular part (Elbow or Hand) of the body.
4. We have perused the photograph of the arm of petitioner where the tattoo is inscribed and assessed the location of the tattoo which is on right side of the right arm. If the contention of the Wakodikar ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 01:34:42 ::: 4/5 907 WP 6784-19.doc respondent authority is that it should not be on the hand which is used for saluting and the rationale is it is not apparently visible while saluting. The tattoo of the petitioner is on the right arm. But as per our understanding, the placement of the tattoo of the petitioner is such that it is not apparently visible and we do not think as to how it would come within the prescribed portion since it is on the right arm and would be easily concealed in sleeves of the uniform. In any case, the petitioner has stated that he has been able to erase the tattoo to the extent of 90% and he is taking steps to erase the same. We fail to understand as to how the placement of the tattoo would come in the restricted part of the body.
5. The Learned Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file reply. Learned Counsel Mr.Kadam submitted that interviews are likely to be scheduled from 24.06.2019 and in such circumstances, he would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the interview. After expressing the aforesaid opinion, we grant time to the respondent to file their reply.
In our prima facie observations, we are guided by the Division Bench Judgment in case of Shridhar Mahadeo Pakhare V/s. Union of India in Writ Petition No.10026/2017 (Justice R.M.Borde and Wakodikar ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 01:34:42 ::: 5/5 907 WP 6784-19.doc Justice Ketkar) in respect of the candidate whose job claim was rejected by CISF because has has tattoo on his forearm. The Division Bench has observed the tattoo do not create obstacle in official duties to be discharged and since he satisfies other eligible criteria, the said authority would make an exception in favour of petitioner.
6. On the basis of our prima facie observations, we direct the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview scheduled from 24/06/2019 and we further direct the respondent No.2 that, only on the ground of the objection raised in the Medical Certificate by the Board, he shall not be refused to be interviewed. Needless to say, the appearance of the petitioner in the interview would be subject to final order.
7. Stand over to 04/07/2019.
8. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order. (SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.) Wakodikar ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/06/2019 01:34:42 :::