JAYANTA HALDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Let the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court today be taken on record.

(2.) Even a bare perusal of the said report reveals that the concerned authority does not even attempt to answer the Court 's specific query, as raised in the order dated 18th Nov., 2015, wherein the concerned respondent authority was directed to disclose its stand as to how an otherwise successful candidate can be declared as ''medically '' unfit merely due to presence of three tattoo marks on his person. The respondent authority was also directed to specifically state the ''medical '' co -relation between a tattoo mark present in the body of a person and its presence affecting the ''medical '' fitness of the said person.

(3.) It appears from paragraph 3 of the report in the form of an affidavit that when the initial medical examination of the petitioner was conducted on 9th Aug., 2012, he was declared ''medically fit '' notwithstanding the fact that he already had three tattoo marks on his person. According to the deponent, there were no instructions/guidelines on tattoo marks during that time. Subsequently, in the month of Nov., 2012 (i.e., three months after the petitioner was declared ''medically fit ''), the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, took a decision upon noticing that during various recruitment in CAPFs and AR, candidates having number of tattoo marks on various parts of body reported for enrolment, to frame a policy. As such, a policy has been framed by issuing a written order dated 16th Nov., 2012, by the Under Secretary of Ministry of Home, Government of India, which reads as follows: