Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sudipta Mondal vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 January, 2017
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
.01.17
129
ab
W.P. 25688(W) of 2016
Sudipta Mondal
-Vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Suman Sankar Chattopadhyaya,
Mr. Santanu Maji,
... for the petitioner
Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari,
... for the respondents
The petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs and Riflemen in Assam Rifles in the year 2015. He was disqualified as he had tattoo mark on the inner side of the right forearm.
The petitioner thereafter got a laser surgery to remove the tattoo mark and applied to the authority for a fresh medical examination. Ultimately a Review Medical Board was constituted.
Mr. Tewari, the learned advocate for the respondents has produced in Court the report of the concerned Chief Medical Officer from which it appears that the petitioner had appeared before the Review Medical Board on September 13, 2016. The tattoo mark was clearly visible on the right forearm. The certificate given by the civil medical authority was also taken into consideration and the petitioner was again disqualified for employment.
Mr. Chattopadhyay, the learned advocate for the petitioner refers to the patient card of the district hospital at Nadia from which it appears that the laser surgery was done. It was heard that now "nothing fresh on right forearm inner 2 side". From this Mr. Chattopadhyay wants to make out a case that the tattoo mark had actually been wholly removed.
I am afraid, such an opinion cannot be formed from the report expressed by the medical officer of the said hospital. All that it says that there was nothing fresh on the inner side of the right forearm. The Review Medical Board had specifically held that the tattoo mark in spite of laser surgery was quite visible. I have seen the report of the Review Medical Board which says that the tattoo mark was present on the inner side of the right forearm and had mentioned the size of the mark. This clearly shows that the tattoo mark was easily visible, maybe it was not a fresh mark.
Mr. Chattopadhyay relied on an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on September 20, 2016 in W.P. No. 18049(W) of 2016 and prayed for constitution of another Review Medical Board.
I have perused the order and I do not find that another medical board as directed by the learned Single Judge in other writ petition can be directed to be formed in the present case. In that case, the petitioner claimed that by laser surgery the tattoo mark had been removed from the right forearm. In this context, the learned Single Judge had directed the competent authority to cause a fresh review medical examination of the petitioner as the petitioner claimed to have removed the tattoo mark by laser therapy from his right forearm. Here the review medical examination has already been over. Even at the time of holding the medical examination, the tattoo mark on the inner side of the right forearm was found clearly visible. Therefore, if the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18049(W) of 2016 had directed for the constitution of a Review Medical Board for fresh medical examination, the same cannot be followed in the present case as the review medical examination has already been made. The petitioner cannot claim constitution of successive medical examinations by competent authority any number of times till he ultimately gets an employment. The report of the concerned Chief Medical Officer is very clear that as per the policy of the 3 respondents, tattoo or any disfigurance of the right forearm is not acceptable in the armed forces as the said hand is the saluting hand.
The Court has also taken into account the policy decision of the respondents with regard to fixing the eligibility criteria of the candidates for employment in all respects. This is also not a case when the unfitness of a candidate based on violating the medical requirement can be said to be arbitrary or without any nexus to the service to be discharged by him.
I, therefore, find nothing to interfere in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti,J)