In a recent judgment, in the case of Sunil kumar v. Union of India and ors., the HC of Jammu and Kashmir while granting relief to a candidate, held that ” Mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm, which does not have any potentiality to interfere with the working of a Constable GD, cannot be made a ground to declare a candidate unfit for service in CAPF.”
In the instant matter, the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Medical Board of Border Safety Force. The medical team declared him unfit for the post of constable. He cleared all the tests required, although they rejected him on account of some scars found on his right and left arms which were the result of the tattoo removal process. He also obtained a certificate from a dermatologist declaring him perfectly fit. The petitioner challenged the decision before the appellant authority, which also declared him unfit.
The HC took the note of the Doctor into consideration and further added, “I am aware that the tattoo beyond the prescribed size on the impermissible areas does render a candidate unfit to be appointed as Constable GD in CAPF, as is evident from the revised Guidelines of 2015. However, I am at a loss to understand how mere abraded lesions on the hand and forearm would, in any way, interfere with the performance of duties of a Constable GD. “