Abrasion after tattoo removal not ground to declare candidate unfit for CAPF service: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently granted relief to a candidate who was not allowed to join the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) on account of scars (abraded lesions) that remained after a tattoo was removed from his hand and forearm. [Sunil Kumar V/s Union of India and others].Justice Sanjeev Kumar ruled that the mere presence of abraded lesions on the hand and forearm, which does not have any potential to interfere with the working of a CAPF office, cannot be made a ground to declare the candidate unfit for service. ."Mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm, which does not have any potentiality to interfere with the working of a Constable GD, cannot be made a ground to declare a candidate unfit for service in CAPF," the order stated. .Hence, the Court directed the respondent-authorities to convene a revised Medical Board and re-examine the petitioner, who had earlier been declared medically unfit for the post of Constable in the Boarder Security Force (BSF)..The petitioner had cleared all the tests required for the post before he was declared as unfit, initially on account of some tattoo marks being found on his right and left arms. He was informed that if he wished to file an appeal against this finding, he would have to apply for a review medical examination after obtaining a medical certificate from any civil medical practitioner within 15 days.The petitioner underwent tattoo removal and obtained a certificate from a dermatologist, who declared him medically fit for the post of Constable GD.The petitioner proceeded to challenge the earlier medical exam before an appellate authority. However, even on such appeal, he was again declared unfit on the ground that there were abraded lesions on his hand, from where the tattoo was removed.This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court for relief, where he contended that the medical board had not duly considered the certificate issued by the dermatologist, Dr. Rajesh Sharma, who was an expert in his field. .The High Court took note of Dr Sharma's opinion that there was no evidence remaining of the tattoo on the petitioner's hand. The Court further remarked that the petitioner was declared unfit without giving any reason as to how the abraded lesions over his right hand and right forearm are likely to affect the performance of duties of a Constable GD.."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 am at a loss to understand as to how mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm would, in any way, interfere in the performance of duties of a Constable GD," the Court said..Hence, the High Court allowed the petitioner's plea. The respondent-authorities were ordered to convene a revised Medical Examination Board and re-examine the petitioner. The Court added that the petitioner should be offered the appointment if, after such medical examination, the petitioner is found to be fit to perform the duties of a Constable GD in terms of the revised guidelines of 2015 and the Court's observations. .[Read Judgment]