Recruitment Of Constables By ITBP: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Disqualification Of Candidate With A Tattoo As It Was Mentioned In Advertisement
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while relying upon the identical case of Vikash Kumar v. Director General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force and Others [W.P.(C) No.12184 of 2021] has held that the authorities cannot be directed to consider the claim of a candidate if there is a stipulated disqualification based on tattoo, mentioned in the advertisement.
The Court observed this in an instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution preferred by the petitioner who was seeking setting aside of the Medical Unfit Certificates whereby he was declared unfit on the ground that he was having tattoo on his right forearm.
A Single Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, “A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Vikash Kumar (supra) has decided the identical issue. The Court has formed an opinion that in view of specific stipulation of disqualification of tattoo on the right arm, the petition cannot be allowed and authorities cannot be directed to consider claim of the petitioner.”
Advocate Surender Pal appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Himanshu Malik appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner, pursuant to an advertisement, applied for the post of Constable in I.T.B.P. (Indo Tibetan Border Police). The petitioner cleared all the steps including Physical Endurance Test/Physical Standard Test held in the year 2019. However, he was declared unfit on the ground that he was having a tattoo on his right arm and as per advertisement, a candidate could not be selected if he had a tattoo.
The counsel for the petitioner contended before the court that tattoo is a curable defect and petitioner had got it removed by simple surgery, thus, he should not be denied selection especially when he completed all the formalities and was physically fit. Whereas, the counsel for the respondents submitted that removal of tattoo at later stage is no ground because it is not possible for the authorities to reconsider each and every case when in the advertisement it was specifically clarified that there should be no tattoo on right arm.
The High Court after considering the above arguments made by the counsel for the parties, referred to one of the paragraphs of the advertisement wherein it was written as follows –
“(iv) Tattoos: -
(a) Content: Being a secular country, the religious sentiments of our countrymen are to be respected and thus, tattoos 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: Size must be less than ¼ of the particular part (Elbow or Hand) of the body.”
The Court then considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the said case of Vikash Kumar in which it was held that the stipulation of disqualification of tattoo on the right arm is a classification that is based on an intelligible differentia and the intelligible differentia has a rationale relation to the object sought to be achieved, namely, that the tattoo is visible while saluting.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Monu v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:PHC:107962)
