UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANYOGITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 28/11/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the respondent's petition has been allowed, declaring the decision of the appellants in rejecting the candidature of the respondent as illegal.

(3.) Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India referred to the provisions contained in sub-clause (3) of Clause 11 of the Uniform Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination for Recruitment of GOs and NGOs in CAPFs and AR dtd. 20/5/2015, in support of his submission by elaborating that tattoo marks are ordinarily attributes of medical unfitness unless they are found on permissible part of the body with permissible content and size. Learned counsel would argue that in disciplined force, the standard of medical fitness is higher than the medical fitness required in other services, because such issues have bearing on the performance and duties in a disciplined force. He would submit that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, ignored and failed to appreciate that the spirit of the provisions, referred to above, required the writ petitioner to be free from any kind of tattoo inscribe or scar of removed tattoo on the inner aspect of right forearm. He would further submit that the scar, which has a permanent imprint, would be a ground for medical unfitness. The decision taken by the body of experts including review medical board, in absence of there being any violation of the provisions of law or binding guidelines, could not be interfered with by the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, as the scope of judicial review against the opinion of the medical board/medical expert is extremely limited and it is not permissible under the law to substitute the opinion through judicial process. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge also did not properly appreciate the facts and circumstances, distinguishing features of the case of Shridhar Mahadeo Pakhare v. Union of India & Ors (Writ Petition No.10026 of 2017) decided by the Bombay High Court.