Member Of Armed Forces Should Have Known Tatoo Is Prohibited: Delhi HC Upholds Disqualification For Appointment As ASI At CISF
|The Delhi High Court while dismissing the challenge to the findings of the Review Medical Examination for Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) in CISF observed that an armed forces member should have known that tattoo on the outer surface of the left forearm is prohibited.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging the findings of the Review Medical Examination report which declared the petitioner unfit for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed, "In the present case, the petitioner, already being a member of the Armed Forces, should have known that the presence of a tattoo on the outer surface of the left forearm is prohibited. In spite of this, he has one. Though for some purposes he is to be treated as a direct recruit, at the same time, he cannot claim the same standard of equity as may be applicable in case of a direct/fresh recruit, who may not be well aware of such stringent medical standards followed in the Armed Forces."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Rajat Arora and while SPC Vatsal Joshi represented the Respondents.
The Petitioner was declared unfit on the ground of presence of a tattoo on his left forearm and on left side of his chest. His Counsel placed reliance on Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Deepak Yadav, to submit that as the tattoo can easily be removed, the respondents should have given time to the petitioner to have the same removed before conducting his RME.
On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in the “Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs: Amendment thereof” dated May 31, 2021, it was clearly recorded that the presence of a tattoo on the left forearm is permitted but on the inner aspect of the forearm and as the petitioner was already part of the Armed Forces, he was aware of this condition. He argued that however, despite knowing the prohibition, he still had a tattoo on the outer surface of the left forearm and, therefore, is not entitled to further relief.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (2023), wherein it was held that appointments to higher posts of an incumbent working at a lower post through LDCE are a form of accelerated promotion, but they cannot be equated with the normal mode of promotion.
The Court was of the view that the Applicant had to comply with all conditions of the advertisement seeking candidature for the post advertised and cannot claim equality with fresh recruit since he is already a member and thus must have abided by the condition.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Gedela Chandra Sekhara Rao vs. Union of India & Anr. (2024: DHC: 9646-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Rajat Arora, Advocate Niraj Kumar
Respondent- Special Public Counsel Vatsal Joshi, Advocate Hussain Taqvi, SI Prahlad Devendra, SI A.K. Singh, Shivakant, AC (CISF), Atul Sen, SI (CISF)
Click here to read/ download Judgment