Gauhati High Court
Haren Kumar Nath vs Union Of India And 4 Ors on 1 June, 2022
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010126732020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3684/2020
HAREN KUMAR NATH
S/O- BHABA KANTA NATH, R/O- H.NO. 29, CHARAIBAHI, P.O. CHARAIBAHI,
P.S. MIKIRBHETA, DIST.- MARIGAON- 782106, ASSAM, PH- 9969686220
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
SHAHJAHAN ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110069
3:THE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
REP. BY ITS DIG (RECRUITMENT) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI- 110001
4:THE MEDICAL REVIEW BOARD
REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER
5:MEDICAL BOARD
FRONTIER HEADQUARTER
BSF GHY
P.O. AZARA
DIST.- KAMRUP
GHY-ASSAM- 78101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A KAKOTI
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Page No.# 2/5
-B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 01.06.2022
1. Heard Mr. A. Kakoti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been rejected by the respondents for appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant, Central Armed Police Forces, as a tattoo was noticed in the right arm and shoulder of the petitioner during his medical examination. Petitioner's case is that he was initially serving as a MARCOS Commando in the Indian Navy on Short Service Commission and retired in the year 2019.
3. The petitioner participated in the Central Armed Police Force (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2019 and also took part in the personality test/interview held with effect from 02.11.2020. The petitioner has stated that during his service tenure in the Indian Navy, he was required to have some tattoo on his body. However, due to the tattoo that had been engraved on his body, the said tattoo became a stumbling block for being appointed as an Assistant Commandant in pursuance to the Central Armed Police Force (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2019.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has managed to remove the entire tattoo from his body, except for a few marks which are negligible. He accordingly submits that a direction should be issued to the respondent authorities to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment.
5. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel submits that the petitioner Page No.# 3/5 has been examined medically on three occasions by the respondents, but he has not been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant only due to the fact that the petitioner has a tattoo on his right arm and shoulder. He submits that the petitioner was declared unfit in accordance with the Revised Guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 20.05.2015, which provides that the size of a tattoo must be less than one-fourth of the particular part of the body. He accordingly submits that there was no infirmity with the decision taken by the respondent authorities, in not selecting the petitioner for appointment.
6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The admitted fact of the case is that the petitioner served in the Indian Navy and was selected for the elite force of the Indian Navy, i.e. MARCOS Commando. The petitioner served in the Indian Navy for a period of fifteen years and retired in July, 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner took part in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Armed Police Forces in pursuance to the advertisement dated 24.04.2019 and cleared the examinations, i.e. written examination, Physical Standard Test (PST)/ Physical Efficiency Test (PET) etc. However, he was declared unfit in the medical examination due to a tattoo he had on his right arm and shoulder. As stated earlier, the petitioner had been declared unfit by the Medical Board and by the Review Medical Board only due to the tattoo on his body. As on date, according to the petitioner, the tattoo has been removed through laser surgery and, as such, there cannot be any impediment for re-considering the case of the petitioner for appointment.
8. In the case of Mridul Baishya -vs- The Union of India & Ors., reported in 2018 (5) GLT 475, this Court was seized of a case in which a candidate for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was declared unfit for having a tattoo on his right forearm. This Court held that as the tattoo in the right Page No.# 4/5 forearm of the petitioner had been removed, the CISF authorities were to re-consider the case of the petitioner therein for appointment.
9. In the present case, the petitioner had apparently been selected as a MARCOS Commando in the Indian Navy, which is an elite group of servicemen, who through their prowess and physical ability have been chosen to defend the country. The tattoo was on the petitioner's body at the time he was a MARCOS Commando and if the petitioner could be said to be a part of an elite service to defend the country with the tattoo, it would be an anomaly on the part of the respondents to deny the petitioner a chance for being selected after the tattoo has been removed. However, as stated by the petitioner's counsel, the tattoo on the petitioner's body has been removed by laser surgery.
10. Accordingly, in view of the reasons stated above and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in Mridul Baishya (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given another chance to be selected in pursuance to the Central Armed Police Force (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2019. The respondents are thus directed to constitute another Review Medical Board, within a period of two months from today, to re-consider the case of the petitioner for selection in pursuance to the Central Armed Police Force (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2019. If selected by the respondents, the question of seniority of the petitioner would naturally be applicable only from the date of his joining the Force.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant