Jharkhand High Court
Pawan Kumar Mahto vs Union Of India on 17 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
Pawan Kumar Mahto, aged about 26 years, son of Jawahar Lal Mahto,
resident of Balidih Goswami Tola, Village-Balidih, Tanr Balidih, P.O.
Balidih, P.S. Balidih, District-Bokaro.
... ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, represented through Secretary to the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel
and Training, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO
Complex, Government of India, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S.
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. Regional Director (ER), Staff Selection Commission, 1st MSO
Building, (8th Floor), 234/4, P.O. Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose
Road, P.S. Maidan, District Kolkata, West Bengal - 700020.
4. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs through its Principal
Secretary, North Block, P.O. & P.S. Chanakyapuri, New Delhi -
110001.
5. Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman SSC, Block No.12,
CGO Complex, P.O. & P.S. - Lodhi Road New Delhi - 110003.
6. Director General CRPF (Recruitment Branch) East Block - 7, Level -
4, Sector 01, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066.
7. The Director General (DG) 40th Bn, ITBPF, Post Office - Kanke Road,
P.S. - Kanke, Ranchi Jharkhand 834006.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC
Mr. Harsh Chandra, AC to CGC
----------------------------
1 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
CAV/Reserved on 11.06.2025 Pronounced on 17/06/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4672 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the prayer made in the writ petition for direction upon the respondents to declare the writ petitioner eligible in every aspect so as the writ petitioner be appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition requires to be enumerated, read as under:
An advertisement inviting application for appointment as Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Force SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2022. The appellant/writ petitioner participated in the selection process and was invited for appearing in the Examination on 17.01.2023 in which he was declared to be qualified and was called for Physical Standard Test(PST)/Physical Efficiency Test(PET). The appellant/writ petitioner got qualified in the PST/PET and was subjected to Detailed Medical Examination (DME) in which the appellant/writ petitioner was declared unfit.
The appellant/writ petitioner therefore, gave option to proceed for review medical examination against the findings of detailed medication examination wherein the review medication board deferred with the finding of the detailed medication examination but with respect to 2 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB existence of Right Forearm Tattoo in the Saluting Hand and healed scar, the appellant/writ petitioner was declared unfit.
The appellant/writ petitioner, being aggrieved thereof, preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 4672 of 2023 which having being dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred.
3. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect that the appellant/writ petitioner had participated in the selection process for appointment as Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Force SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Examination, 2022.
4. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he has duly qualified in the physical test and was called for the medical examination. The appellant/writ petitioner was found to be medically unfit initially since the Tattoo mark was found on the Right Forearm along with Left Convergent Squint, Healed Scar and Knock Knees. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged the opinion of the medical board before the review medical board. The review medical board after conducting the fresh medical examination of the writ petitioner has found that the writ petitioner is having Tattoo Mark measuring 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the right forearm of the saluting hand, however, the said review medical board has found no knock knees or even the squint.
5. The petitioner has not been found to be eligible on the reason of having Tattoo Mark in the right forearm of the saluting hand. The appellant/writ petitioner, on the aforesaid ground, has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4672 of 2023. During pendency of the 3 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB said writ petition, the report of the review medical board has also been challenged by filing interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1358 of 2024. The said interlocutory application was allowed vide order dated 13.02.2024. The learned writ court on consideration of the guideline dated 20.05.2015 for recruitment in Central Armed Police Force, Assam Rifles as also the unfit memorandum, has refused to pass positive direction in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner on the ground that the Tattoo Mark has been found on his Right Forearm Saluting Hand which according to the said guideline is a disqualification of a candidate for the purpose of recruitment.
6. The said order is under challenge by filing the instant appeal.
7. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner while assailing the impugned order has taken the following grounds:
(i) The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that merely on the ground of having Tattoo Mark on the Right Forearm of the Saluting Hand which has been considered to be an ineligibility of the appellant/writ petitioner by the appointing authority but the said reason of ineligibility cannot be said to be proper reason to declare the appellant/writ petitioner ineligible for the purpose of the said recruitment.
(ii) The ground has been taken that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the report of the review medical board wherein healed scar has also been found which suggest that there was no Tattoo Mark available in the Right Forearm Saluting Hand.4 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
(iii) Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has further taken the ground that the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated that save and except the Tattoo Mark on the Right Forearm of the Saluting Hand there was no physical incapability declaring the appellant/writ petitioner to be ineligible for appointment to the said post.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the aforesaid ground, has challenged the said order by filing the instant appeal.
9. Learned AC to Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned CGC is present and has defended the impugned judgment.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also in the memo of appeal as also incorporated in the impugned judgment.
11. The issue which requires consideration is as to whether the appellant/writ petitioner can be declared to be eligible if he is not eligible in terms of the guidelines dated 20.05.2015 but before considering the aforesaid aspect, the admitted facts of the case need to be referred herein.
12. The appellant/writ petitioner has participated in the selection process in terms of the advertisement wherein the recruitment process has initiated in pursuance of the guideline dated20.05.2015. The said guideline contains condition regarding Tattoo Mark under the Miscellaneous Conditions which is being referred herein as under:
"3) Tattoo: The practice of engraving / tattooing in India is prevalent since tir immemorial, but has been limited to depict the name or a religious figure invariably on inner aspect of forearm and usually on left side. On the other hand the present young generation is 5 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB considerably under the influence of western culture and thus the number of potential recruits bearing skin art had grown enormously over the years, which is not only distasteful but distract from go order and discipline in the force. Following criteria are to be used to determine permissibility of tattoo:
a) Content-being a secular country, the religious sentiments of countrymen are to be respected and thus tattoos depicting religious symbol or figure 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 forearm, but only LEFT forearm, being non saluting limb or dorsum of hands are to be allowed.
c) Size-size must be less than ¼ of the particular part (Elbow or Hand) of the body."
13. It is evident from the aforesaid condition that in a case if a candidate is having Tattoo Mark on the Right Forearm of the Saluting Hand, then in such circumstances, the said candidate cannot be declared to be eligible for the purpose of consideration of recruitment to the said post.
14. The fact of the case of the appellant/writ petitioner herein is that he was available in the physical test in which he has been declared to be successful. Subsequent thereto, he has participated in the medical board, however, following infirmities were found:
(i) Left Convergent Squint;
(ii) Right Forearm Tattoo & Healed Scar;
(iii) Knock Knees.
15. The appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the said medical report by opting to go before the review medical board. The review medical board was conducted in which the review medical board however has not found the other infirmities as was found by the medical board but tattoo mark on 6 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB the right forearm of the saluting hand was found to be there. The appellant/writ petitioner, therefore, was declared to be ineligible by taking into consideration the specific condition stipulated in the guideline as referred hereinabove by which a candidate having Tattoo Mark on his right forearm of the saluting hand is declared to be ineligible.
16. The fact about availability of Tattoo Mark on his right forearm of the saluting hand is not in dispute since the appellant/writ petitioner, while filing the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1358 of 2024 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.02.2024, has challenged the entire report of the review medical board without questioning the non-availability of the Tattoo Mark on his right forearm of the saluting hand which would be evident from the prayer made in the said interlocutory application which is being referred herein as under:
"A. Amendment in the Prayer vide Para 1(B) & prayer portion of the writ petition by addition of following relief "Quashing of decision of Review Medical Board dated 03.08.2023 whereby the petitioner has been declared unfit on account of 'tattoo mark' on the anterior aspect of Right Forearm.
..."
Paragraph-5 and 6 of the aforesaid interlocutory application also needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:
"5. That it is stated that due to inadvertence and lack of legal acumen the petitioner could not impugn the decision of Review Medical Board dated 03.08.2023, which is already enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-7. It is stated the action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner unfit on the ground of tattoo mark is wholly unsustainable in the light of the extant guidelines of the year 2015.
6. That it is stated that the Petitioner has also got his tattoo marks removed by a simple skin treatment and no tattoo mark is visible on his Right Forearm."7 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
17. At the time of filing of the writ petition, there was no prayer made questioning the review medical board since there was no review medical board report and that is the reason the interlocutory application was filed after the report of the review medical board questioning the report in entirety without making specific statement that tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is not there rather the prayer has been made that even though the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is there, the same cannot be a bar for the purpose of declaring the appellant/writ petitioner to be ineligible.
18. It is also the admitted fact that the guideline has not been challenged which put bar in the consideration of the candidate for the purpose of recruitment if the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is found. Therefore, the fact is admitted that the appellant/writ petitioner has been found to be having with the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand and in this context, the issue has been decided by the learned Single Judge that if the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is there and if in such circumstances, the appellant/writ petitioner has been declared to be ineligible, can such decision of the selection board or the recruitment agency be said to suffer from error.
19. The learned Single Judge has answered the same that if the decision has been taken based upon the ineligibility clause as has been provided in the guideline dated 20.05.2015 by the recruitment authority, the said decision cannot be said to suffer from error.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has argued that even though the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is there, 8 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB the same is not a serious condition to declare the candidate to be ineligible and the same is not worth to be accepted due to the reason that if a condition has been stipulated in the guideline and the said condition has not been questioned then contrary to the condition stipulated in the guideline made for the purpose of consideration of recruitment of one or the other candidate, if any decision will be taken by the recruitment agency, the same will amount to relaxing the condition which is not permissible and if such condition will be relaxed then the question would be that why the relaxation to only one candidate and why it be not applied uniformly. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs-29, 30, 31 and 32 has been pleased to observe which are being referred as under:
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication 9 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent.
31. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of U.P., (2019) 17 SCC 373 while taking the reference of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudullah Khan & Ors. (supra) has categorically observed which reads as under:
11. Admittedly, the Rules governing the selection to the posts of Technician Grade 2 (Apprenticeship Electrical) require every candidate to submit a Doeacc certificate signifying completion of 80 hours' CCC at the time of interview. Such condition was made compulsory. The advertisement also contained the condition regarding submission of the certificate at the time of interview. There is no doubt that there exists a power of relaxation of any of the Rules which could be exercised by the Chairman of the Corporation. It is nobody's case that the Chairman/Managing Director was not competent to relax the Rules. But, the submission made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that the relaxation could not have been done as the advertisement did not mention about a possible relaxation of the Rules. We find force in the said submission made on behalf of the writ petitioners as this Court in Bedanga Talukdar [Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 10 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB 12 SCC 85 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 635] held as follows : (SCC pp. 92-93, para 29) "29. ... In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure.
Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." (emphasis supplied)
12. We are in respectful agreement with the above judgment of this Court. Exercise of the power of relaxation without informing the candidates about the existence of such power would be detrimental to the interests of others who did not possess the certificate and did not take part in the selection process. We are unable to accept the submission that selection is on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the written test and interview and that the Doeacc certificate is not an essential requirement. The Rule as well as the advertisement provide for submission of the certificate at the time of interview, compulsorily. The Rule further provides for production of the certificate as an additional requirement for selection. The above stipulation in the Rule as well as the advertisement cannot be ignored.
22. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nutan Kumari Versus B.R.A. Bihar University and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1408 has reiterated the same view which reads as under:
23. Further, once an advertisement has been issued and the selection criteria prescribed, there is little scope for relaxing the norms, more so, by the Selection Committee unless and until it can be adequately demonstrated that it had the power to do so. We may allude to a decision of this Court in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission and B. Swapna17 which highlights the adverse consequences of interfering with the criteria of selection laid down under the rules in the following words:
"14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criterion e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said 11 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 411 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 163 : (1990) 12 ATC 727] and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig [(1999) 1 SCC 544 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 325].)
15. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope for relaxation of norms. Although the Court must look with respect upon the performance of duties by experts in the respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of ushering in a society based on rule of law. Once it is most satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated. In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214] this Court held that once it is established that there is no power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised."
23. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid settled proposition of law that the condition as has been stipulated in the guideline for consideration of a candidate for the recruitment, the said condition is strictly to be adhered to and there cannot be any deviation.
24. This Court, based upon the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, is of the view that if a condition has been stipulated in the guideline that if a candidate is having tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand, then the same will be considered to be a condition for ineligibility. The fact about having tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is admitted one as would be evident from the report of the review medical board and in that view of the matter, if any deviation will be there by directing to consider the appellant/writ petitioner eligible, the same will be contrary to the provision as contained in the guideline dated 20.05.2015.
12 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
25. This Court, therefore, is of the view that no such endeavour is to be given to a candidate who is not found to be eligible in terms of the guideline.
26. Accordingly, the issue, as referred above, is answered.
27. After the issue having been answered, this Court has gone through the impugned judgment and has found that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the primacy of the guideline and the adherence to the condition stipulated in the guideline has been taken into consideration primarily by which the appellant/writ petitioner has been held to be not eligible for having tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand.
28. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the judgment relied upon on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner, i.e., in the case of Dharmvir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ Petition(s) Civil No(s).444 of 2019] and Sanyogita Vs. Union of India, 2023 SSC OnLine Raj 3709.
29. This Court has appreciated the aforesaid case and for ready reference, the factual aspect of both the cases are being discussed herein.
30. As per the factual aspects of the Dharmvir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) the petitioner in the selection process undertaken for the posts of Sub Inspectors, U.P. Police, had qualified in five stages of the examination (Physical Standard Test, Preliminary Written Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Main Written Test and Group Discussion) and was thereafter subjected to normal medical examination. It was found that the petitioner was suffering from medical problem known as DNS (Deviated Nasal Septum). On a representation made by the petitioner, the petitioner was again medically examined by Medical Board which affirmed the 13 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB findings and found him to be unfit on account of the aforesaid medical condition. The candidature of the petitioner was thus rejected.
31. The petitioner thereafter approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refer the petitioner for medical re-examination by the Medical Board for his temporary unfitness. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the nature of ailment and medical condition, has held that since the issue appears to be remediable and not of any permanent character, therefore, allow the petition and direct the respondent- authorities to constitute a fresh Board of Medical Professionals who may undertake medical examination of the petitioner afresh.
32. Comparing the fact of the Dharmvir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) in the present factual scenario it is evident that there is material difference of circumstances. In the aforesaid case the medical condition appears to be remediable and not of any permanent character but herein there is violation of eligibility criteria as petitioner has tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand.
33. Thus, it is evident that the factual aspect of the present case is quite different to that of the aforesaid cases since it not the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that there is no tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand rather it is admitted that the tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand is there as per the assessment made by the review medical board.
14 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
34. From the factual aspect of the case of Sanyogita Vs. Union of India (supra) it is evident that respondent issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of Constable (General Duty) in Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Shashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Secretariat Security Force (SSF), Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles (AR) and Sepoy in NCB (Narcotics Control Bureau) as per the Recruitment Scheme formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and as per the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Staff Selection Commission. As per the advertisement, the recruitment process consisted of Computer Based Examination (CBE), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST), Medical Examination and Document Verification. The eligible candidates while submitting their application forms were required to opt the names of abovenamed organizations in the order of preference/priority.
35. The petitioner herein who is a female candidate applied against the advertised post. The petitioner successfully cleared Computer Based Examination (CBE), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST). The petitioner had thus, acquired sufficient merit for being appointed on the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) etc., in her category. The petitioner was called for medical examination on 20.07.2023.
15 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024
2025:JHHC:15908-DB
36. However, the petitioner was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board for the reason that she bore a tattoo removal scar mark over her right forearm and dorsum of right hand. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the result given in medical examination requested the respondents to constitute a Review Medical Board.
37. The Review Medical Board after examination vide its order dated 21.07.2023 declared petitioner unfit and maintained the reasons for medical unfitness mentioned by Medical Board in its communication dated 20.07.2023.
38. Accordingly, being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner had preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court and the learned Single Judge while taking into consideration certain category of candidates having tattoo on their body/hand are being provided appointment in the respondent-organization in conformity with Sub Clause-3 of the Clause-11 of the guidelines dated 20.05.2015 has allowed the said petition.
39. Thus from the aforesaid factual aspects of the said case as relied the writ petitioner it is evident that the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court while taking into consideration Sub Clause-3 of the Clause-11 of the guidelines dated 20.05.2015 has formed the opinion that certain category of candidates having tattoo on their body/hand are being provided appointment has allowed the prayer of the said petitioner but in the instant case factual aspect is relatively different and since the condition stipulated in the said advertisement has not been followed as the 16 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024 2025:JHHC:15908-DB appellant/writ petitioner has tattoo mark on the right forearm of the saluting hand as per the assessment made by the review medical board.
40. Thus, the learned Single Judge on that premise has not found the judgment rendered in the case of Dharmvir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ Petition(s) Civil No(s).444 of 2019] and Sanyogita Vs. Union of India, 2023 SSC OnLine Raj 3709 to be applicable in the given facts of the case, as such, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.
41. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference.
42. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed, as such, stands dismissed.
43. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Saurabh /A.F.R.
17 L.P.A. No. 192 of 2024