Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonam Lodhi vs Union Of India on 3 January, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 3 rd OF JANUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 2037 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SONAM LODHI D/O MURARI LAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EMPLOYEE R/O VILALGE
MALKHEDI TAHSIL BINA DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS R/O SHASTRI
BHAWAN NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CRPF
(RECRUITMENT BRANCH) NEW DELHI EAST
BLOCK-07 (DELHI)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.17320 of 2020, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission inviting online applications for the post of Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 1/10/2024 1:30:43 PM 2 Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018 published on 21.07.2018, the petitioner applied for the same. Admission card was issued to her bearing roll no.6015001989. She appeared in the examination and qualified the same. She has obtained 87.31 marks in the examination. She appeared for physical examination. She qualified the physical examination also. Thereafter, she was required to appear before Medical Board for her medical examination. She appeared before the Medical Examination Board and was declared unfit. The reason assigned was that she was having a tattoo on her right forearm.
3. It is her case that the tattoo mark was engraved in her childhood as a traditional tattoo mark in accordance with a religious ritual. She represented to the authorities and was required to get a medical fitness certificate from some Dermatologist of Civil Hospital. She got herself examined in Government M.G.M. Medical College and M.Y. Hospital Indore and obtained a medical fitness certificate declaring her fit on 08.02.2020. The same was placed before the authorities. A fresh admit card was issued to the petitioner and she was required to appear before the Medical Board on 10.10.2020 wherein again she was declared unfit. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Rule III-B (9) of the Selection Rules, tattoo marks are permissible. It is argued that on re- examination by the Dermatologist a clean chit has been given to the petitioner which was placed on record before the writ court but the same was not properly appreciated. The writ court took note of the fact that there is a specific bar for having a tattoo on the right forearm, being a saluting arm it should not have any tattoo. It is submitted that the report of the Dermatologist does not show any presence of tattoo. Therefore, the authorities should have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable. The writ Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 1/10/2024 1:30:43 PM 3 court failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and only on the presumption and admission of the petitioner that she was having a tattoo mark on the right forearm, the petition was dismissed. It is argued before this court that the findings of the writ court are contrary to the record as there is no tattoo mark which is found by Dermatologist during subsequent examination. The report which is submitted reflects that a scar mark is being seen on the right forearm which clearly shows that the tattoo mark has been removed subsequently. However, there was no such opinion given by the Medical Board. Therefore, the writ court has committed an error in holding that there was a tattoo in right forearm of the petitioner as admitted by her. Therefore, no relief was extended to the petitioner.
4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. The only question for consideration before this court is that whether the tattoo mark is compulsory in terms of Clause 9 of the Advertisement. Clause 9 of the Advertisement provides as under -
"Tattoo: Following criteria has been fixed to determine permissibility of Tattoo:
(a) Content: Tattoo 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: Must be less than ¼ of the particular part (Elbow or Hand) of the body. Note: Amendment if any in the tattoo policy will be applicable for this recruitment if the same is made before the date of Detailed Medical Examination."
6. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that only left arm tattoo was permissible. Right arm being a saluting arm, no tattoos are permissible. It is the case of the petitioner herself as mentioned in paragraph 5.3 of the writ petition Signature Not Verified Signed by: LORETTA RAJ Signing time: 1/10/2024 1:30:43 PM 4 that the tattoo mark was engraved in the childhood as a traditional tattoo mark in accordance with the religious rituals. However, the same was subsequently removed. The report of the Dermatologist shows that there was scar on the right arm of the petitioner. The document i.e. a medical report dated 10.10.2020 shows the presence of a scar mark of tattoo measuring 3x3 cms 2 on the right forearm i.e. the saluting forearm therefore, she was declared unfit. The aforesaid aspect could not be disputed by the counsel appearing for the appellant. However, she has placed heavy reliance upon the subsequent report submitted by the Dermatologist which does not reflect the presence of any tattoo. However, on perusal of report it is clear that there is a scar mark which is equal in size to that of a tattoo mark over the right forearm which is a saluting arm. It appears that after medical examination of the petitioner initially, she has got removed the tattoo. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the writ court. The admission on the part of the petitioner was also considered. There is no clarification or justification that could be given regarding admission by the petitioner with respect to tattoo being engraved in the very childhood.
7. Under these circumstances, no error is committed by the writ court in dismissing the petition. The rules does not permit the tattoo mark on the right arm being a saluting arm. Therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
8. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
LR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 1/10/2024
1:30:43 PM