Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shridhar Mahadeo Pakhare, applied for the post of constable/driver in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in response to an advertisement. After being found eligible in the interview, he was referred for medical examination. The Medical Board declared him medically unfit solely on the ground that he had a tattoo mark on the outer aspect of his right arm. The advertisement contained a Note (iii) debarring candidates with permanent tattoos from recruitment. The petitioner contended that the tattoo was a religious symbol and did not interfere with his duties; further, he had undergone laser treatment and removed 90% of it. He argued that similar exceptions were made for tattoos in the Armed Forces and for the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF, where guidelines allowed tattoos depicting religious symbols under certain conditions. The petitioner challenged the medical opinion and sought directions to be considered eligible. The respondents admitted that the petitioner was otherwise eligible but relied on the absolute bar on tattoos. The High Court observed that it was not permissible for the employer to treat different classes of employees differently by applying disparate medical parameters. The Court stressed that religious sentiments must be respected and that the petitioner could not be compelled to remove a religious symbol. The fact that the tattoo was substantially removed further supported the petitioner's case. The Court held the medical opinion unreasonable and discriminatory. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for employment without treating the tattoo as an impediment. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Medical Fitness and Tattoo Marks - Discriminatory Standards - General Administrative Guidelines - The petitioner, a candidate for constable/driver in CISF, was declared medically unfit due to a tattoo on his right arm, whereas for the higher post of Sub-Inspector, guidelines permitted tattoos depicting religious symbols on certain locations and sizes. The Court held that applying different medical standards for different posts without rational basis is discriminatory and impermissible. Held that the petitioner's claim must be considered and the medical opinion cannot be an impediment (Paras 3-5). B) Constitutional Law - Religious Freedom and Employment - Respect for Religious Sentiments - Constitution of India, 1950 - The petitioner's tattoo was a religious symbol. The Court emphasized that religious sentiments of citizens must be given due weightage and that compelling removal of a religious symbol is unreasonable. Held that the disqualification interfered with religious practice (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether medical opinion declaring a candidate unfit for the post of constable/driver due to a tattoo mark is valid when the tattoo is a religious symbol and similar parameters are relaxed for higher posts?
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to consider petitioner for employment as constable/driver, and the medical opinion holding petitioner ineligible due to tattoo shall not be an impediment. Rule made absolute, no costs.
Law Points
- Religious sentiments of citizens must be respected
- discriminatory standards for medical fitness based on tattoo marks are impermissible
- tattoos depicting religious symbols permitted as per guidelines
- removal of tattoo to 90% militates against disqualification
