A single bench of Rajasthan Excessive Court docket, Jodhpur directed Union authorities to maintain a put up vacant for candidate affected by Cubitus Valgu and having Tattoo Mark in pursuance of CISF Examination, 2019, until additional orders.
After listening to the petitioner on interim reduction, Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal dominated, “Bearing in mind the submissions superior by the realized counsel for the petitioner and the fabric on report, this Court docket deems it simply and correct to direct the respondents to maintain a put up vacant in pursuance of examination, 2019, until additional orders.“
Within the current case, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected even after remaining profitable in all phases of the Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFS and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF Examination, 2019. The rejection of the petitioner was made on two grounds. The primary floor of rejection was that he’s affected by Cubitus Valgus with out specifying its diploma. The second floor assigned for rejecting his candidature is the tattoo mark on his proper forearm.
The petitioner rebutted that as per the certificates issued by the SMS Medical Faculty, his carrying angle is under 15 diploma which is beneath the permissible restrict. As per the Clause-7 of the rules for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles issued by the Union House Ministry (Police Division-II), the permissible restrict of carrying angle is upto 20 levels.
The petitioner additional submitted that as per medical certificates issued by a topic professional, his tattoo mark just isn’t seen and he has been declared medically match. He relied on the case of Amit Kumar Bhambhu Vs. The Union of India & Ors., which concerned equivalent controversy and whereby, this Court docket has been happy to grant interim reduction whereas issuing discover.
In 2018, the Bombay High Court granted reduction to a person declared unfit for the put up of constable/driver within the Central Industrial Safety Drive (CISF) as he had a tattoo.
The Court docket held, “As far as the put up for which the petitioner tendered utility fully debars a candidate and holds him medically unfit if any tattoo mark is discovered on his physique, merely as a result of the put up claimed by the petitioner is subordinate to the put up of Sub-Inspector, totally different parameters in respect of medical health can’t be utilized. The non secular sentiments of a citizen shall should be given a due weightage and specifically whereas making recruitment to the next put up such exceptions are made, there was no motive for the employer to use the identical parameters and maintain the petitioner ineligible. Other than this, there isn’t a dispute that the tattoo in query has been eliminated to the extent of 90%.”
In one other case of 2017, the Bombay High Court has put aside an order declaring a candidate for the put up of Sub-Inspector within the Central Industrial Safety Drive as unfit as a result of tattoos and requested them to permit the candidate to take part within the closing choice course of.
Case Title: Ramchandra Nath Siddh Son Of Poos Nath Siddh v. The Union Of India and Ors.
Quotation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj)5