Case Title: AKSHAY CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5602/2024
Dated on: MAY 20, 2024
Coram: V. KAMESWAR RAO, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
Facts:
The prima facie of the current case demonstrates that Akshay Choudhary, herein the petitioner filed a petition seeking relief from the HC of Delhi. It was stated that he had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant (Group A) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) but was declared unfit during the Medical Standard Test (MST) due to a tattoo on his right forearm. The petitioner underwent tattoo removal surgery and requested a review medical examination (RME), but was again declared unfit due to an unhealed scar. The petitioner argued that the tattoo had been completely removed, and hence, he should be considered fit for the position. However, the court acknowledged that while the Medical Board had valid reasons to examine the scar, it should have allowed sufficient time for healing before making a determination. Moreover, considering the evidence presented, including photographs of the petitioner’s forearm and a specialist’s opinion indicating the scar may have healed, the court directed the respondents to conduct a re-examination. If the new Medical Board finds the scar has healed, the petitioner should be considered for appointment. Otherwise, the matter will be concluded against the petitioner. The court ordered the re-examination to be completed within six weeks and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Issues framed by the Court:
- Whether the petitioner’s case was rightly rejected by the Medical Board/Review Medical Board.
- Whether the eligibility conditions stipulated in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Commandant (Group A) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) were met by the petitioner.
- Whether the Medical Board/Review Medical Board should have allowed sufficient time for the petitioner’s scar to heal before making a determination of fitness.
- Whether the evidence presented, including photographs of the petitioner’s forearm and a specialist’s opinion, indicates that the scar may have healed.
- Whether a re-examination by a new Medical Board is warranted to determine the current status of the petitioner’s scar and fitness for the position.
Legal Provision:
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: It gives High Courts the power to issue writs to any person or authority, including governments, throughout the territories in which they have jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant, Akshay Choudhary, contended that he had initially been declared unfit for a job position due to a tattoo on his right forearm. He underwent surgery to remove the tattoo and requested a re-examination. However, he was again deemed unfit due to an unhealed scar from the surgery. The petitioner argued that since the tattoo was now removed, he should be considered fit for the job. Moreover, he also stated that the medical examination should have been conducted after allowing sufficient time for the scar to heal. The petitioner provided evidence, including photographs and a doctor’s opinion, suggesting that the scar had healed. As a result, he requested the court to order a new medical examination to determine his current fitness for the job.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents argued that the eligibility conditions for the job position stipulated that tattoo on certain parts of the body, including the right forearm, were not allowed. They contended that since the tattoo was originally on the right forearm, the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria even after the tattoo removal surgery. Additionally, they asserted that the medical examination was conducted based on the conditions present at that time and should not be reconsidered after the fact. Therefore, they opposed the petitioner’s request for a new examination and argued for the dismissal of the case.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
Upon analysing the complete scenario of this present case, the hon’ble court rightly considered the matter of fact and stated that though the petitioner removed the tattoo through surgery, but the medical board still declares him to be unfit because the scar hadn’t healed properly. Moreover, the court agreed that the medical board should have given more time for the scar to heal before making a decision. They also looked at evidence, like photos of Choudhary’s forearm and a doctor’s opinion, which suggested the scar might have healed by then. Therefore, the court ordered a new medical check-up by a different team. If they find the scar has healed, the petitioner should be considered for the job. Otherwise, the case will be closed against him. They said this new check-up should happen within six weeks.
“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.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta
