NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a decision of the CISF declaring a candidate ‘unfit’ for appointment to the post of ASI due to the presence of tattoos on his body.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was hearing a plea filed by a candidate who was declared unfit on the grounds of the presence of a tattoo on his left forearm and on the left side of his chest.
The petitioner, Gedela Chandra Sekhara Rao, was declared “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 plea contended that the employer should have given time to the petitioner to have the tattoo removed before conducting his Review Medical Examination (RME) as the same can easily be removed.
In response, the CISF contended that in the 2021 “Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles for GOs and NGOs: Amendment thereof”, it has been clearly stated that the presence of a tattoo on the left forearm is permitted but on the inner aspect of the forearm.
The petitioner, who was already part of the armed forces, was aware of this prohibition and despite knowing this condition, he still had a tattoo on the outer surface of the left forearm and, therefore, was not entitled to any relief, it added.
After considering all the submissions, the Delhi High Court, referring to a decision of the Supreme Court, said 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 and the applicant has to comply with all conditions of the advertisement seeking candidature for the post advertised.
“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, ” it added.
Observing that there is no merit in the present petition, the Delhi HC dismissed the plea filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.