SONAM LODHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dtd. 25/9/2013 passed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.17320 of 2020, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to advertisement issued by the Staff Selection Commission inviting online applications for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA and SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018 published on 21/7/2018, the petitioner applied for the same. Admission card was issued to her bearing roll no.6015001989. She appeared in the examination and qualified the same. She has obtained 87.31 marks in the examination. She appeared for physical examination. She qualified the physical examination also. Thereafter, she was required to appear before Medical Board for her medical examination. She appeared before the Medical Examination Board and was declared unfit. The reason assigned was that she was having a tattoo on her right forearm.

(3.) It is her case that the tattoo mark was engraved in her childhood as a traditional tattoo mark in accordance with a religious ritual. She represented to the authorities and was required to get a medical fitness certificate from some Dermatologist of Civil Hospital. She got herself examined in Government M.G.M. Medical College and M.Y. Hospital Indore and obtained a medical fitness certificate declaring her fit on 8/2/2020. The same was placed before the authorities. A fresh admit card was issued to the petitioner and she was required to appear before the Medical Board on 10/10/2020 wherein again she was declared unfit. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Rule III-B (9) of the Selection Rules, tattoo marks are permissible. It is argued that on reexamination by the Dermatologist a clean chit has been given to the petitioner which was placed on record before the writ court but the same was not properly appreciated. The writ court took note of the fact that there is a specific bar for having a tattoo on the right forearm, being a saluting arm it should not have any tattoo. It is submitted that the report of the Dermatologist does not show any presence of tattoo. Therefore, the authorities should have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable. The writ court failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and only on the presumption and admission of the petitioner that she was having a tattoo mark on the right forearm, the petition was dismissed. It is argued before this court that the findings of the writ court are contrary to the record as there is no tattoo mark which is found by Dermatologist during subsequent examination. The report which is submitted reflects that a scar mark is being seen on the right forearm which clearly shows that the tattoo mark has been removed subsequently. However, there was no such opinion given by the Medical Board. Therefore, the writ court has committed an error in holding that there was a tattoo in right forearm of the petitioner as admitted by her. Therefore, no relief was extended to the petitioner.