Case Name: Akshay Choudhary v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5602/2024
Dated: May 20, 2024
Quorum: Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts of the case revolve around one Akshay Choudhary, the petitioner, has filed a writ petition contesting the findings of the Review Medical Examination Report, which deemed him ineligible because of a tattoo. After passing the written exam to become an Assistant Commandant in the CAPF, Choudhary had tattoo removal procedures performed, but his unhealed scar kept him from being considered fit.
The petitioner, Akshay Choudhary, has filed a writ appeal to overturn the conclusions of the Review Medical Examination Report, which determined that his tattoo disqualifies him from the case. Even though Choudhary underwent tattoo removal surgery after clearing the written exam to become an Assistant Commandant in the CAPF, his unhealed scar prevented him from being deemed fit.
Even though Choudhary underwent tattoo removal surgery after clearing the written exam to become an Assistant Commandant in the CAPF, his unhealed scar prevented him from being deemed fit. In an attempt to reverse the findings of the Review Medical Examination Report—which concluded that the petitioner, Akshay Choudhary, is ineligible for the case because of his tattoo—he has filed a writ appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Central Armed Police Forces (‘CAPF’) had published an advertisement and examination notice on April 26, 2023, regarding the appointment to the position of Assistant Commandant (Group A). That the petitioner had surgery on December 8, 2023, to remove a tattoo that was etched on his right forearm.
After passing the written exam, the petitioner was called by respondent No. 3/ ITBP on December 19, 2023, for the Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and Medical Standard Test (MST) as well as the Review Medical Examination (RME) at 39 Battalion, ITBP, NOIDA. There, he was found unfit due to a tattoo mark of “OM” that was engraved in Hindi on the inner anterior part of his right forearm.
The learned counsel also contended that The petitioner applied for the Review Medical Examination (abbreviated “RME”) with diligence. Once more, the petitioner had a tattoo removal procedure on December 27, 2023.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel of the respondents argued that the submissions made by Mr. Mehta, stating that the examination notice and advertisement issued by the respondents clearly stipulate that each candidate must meet all eligibility requirements in order to be accepted into the respondents’ Force. The advertisement further specifies that tattoos on conventional body sites, such as the inner aspect of the forearm, are only permitted on the left forearm—sooner than on the saluting limb or the dorsum of the hands.
In his opinion, the petitioner’s case does not meet the eligibility requirements mentioned in the relevant advertisement because the tattoo is located on the front side of the right forearm. Apart from that, the medical situation must be seen on the day of the medical examination or RME, not four months later as requested by the petitioner in this instance.
For this reason, the current petition must be denied. After hearing from the parties’ knowledgeable solicitors, the brief matter that needs to be addressed is whether the petitioner’s case was properly denied by the Medical Board or Review Medical Board.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court determined that there was no tattoo following the procedure to remove it, and that the Tattoo Clause does not, on its face, require that a candidate’s scar from a tattoo removal be unhealthy or unhealed in order for the candidate to be disqualified. However, we believe that the Medical Board and Review Medical Board had a legitimate reason to review the scar from the procedure in order to make sure that the portion of the hand that is visible when saluting is clear in every way. In that sense, the Review Medical Board’s judgement might be supported.
The judge decided that, but the reality still holds that the Review Medical Board ought not to have looked at the petitioner right away following a few days of surgery and ought to have provided enough time for the petitioner to guarantee that the scar heals, and then determine the petitioner’s suitability or unfitness based on the picture of the right forearm of the petitioner at ANNEXURE P-6, in addition to the the petitioner requested an opinion from an ANNEXURE skin expert P-7 on April 20, 2024, who stated that they could not observe any tattoo residue and two to three sessions would be required for full post-laser clearing. prima facie, hyperpigmentation suggests that the scar may have recovered. Therefore, in the exercise of its extraordinary authority, this Court
The court, in finality, observed that In the event that the Medical Board rules in favour of the petitioner, the respondents will proceed with the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Commandant, provided that there are openings in the Group A grade of Assistant Commandant. If not, the petitioner will be considered to have lost the case. The re-examination process mentioned above must be finished as soon as feasible—six weeks from today is the upper limit—and any additional action that has to be taken must be done so as soon as practicable.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora
