The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently granted relief to a candidate who was denied admission to the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) due to scars (abraded lesions) that remained after a tattoo was removed from his hand and forearm.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar ruled in his order that “Mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm, which have no potential to interfere with the work of a Constable GD, cannot be used to declare a candidate unfit for service in CAPF.”
Hence, the Court ordered the respondent-authorities to convene a new Medical Board and re-examine the petitioner, who had previously been declared medically unfit for the position of Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF).
The petitioner had passed all of the required tests for the position before being declared unfit, initially due to some tattoo marks discovered on his right and left arms.
The petitioner was told that if he wanted to file an appeal against this finding, he would have to apply for a review medical examination within 15 days after obtaining a medical certificate from any civil medical practitioner.
The petitioner had tattoos removed and obtained a certificate from a dermatologist stating that he was medically fit for the position of Constable GD.
The petitioner proceeded to challenge the earlier medical exam before an appellate authority. Despite this appeal, he was declared unfit again because of abraded lesions on his hand from where the tattoo was removed.
This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief, claiming that the medical board had not properly considered the certificate issued by the dermatologist, Dr. Rajesh Sharma, an expert in his field.
The High Court observed Dr. Sharma’s opinion that there was no evidence of the tattoo on the petitioner’s hand.
“I am aware that the tattoo beyond the prescribed size on the impermissible areas do render a candidate unfit to be appointed as Constable GD in CAPF, as is evident from the revised Guidelines of 2015. However, I’m at a loss to understand as to how mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm would interfere in any way with performance of duties of a Constable GD,” the Court stated.
As a result, the petitioner’s plea was granted by the High Court. The respondent-authorities were ordered to convene a revised Medical Examination Board and re-examine the petitioner.
The Court also added that the petitioner should be offered the appointed if, following the medical examination, he or she is found to be fit to perform the duties of a Constable GD in accordance with the revised guidelines of 2015 and the Court’s observations.
