cisf-decision-on-tattoo-ban-for-asi-post-upheld-by-delhi-hc

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the decision of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to declare a candidate “unfit” for the position of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) due to tattoos on his body.

 

The case involved a petition filed by Gedela Chandra Sekhara Rao, who was declared unfit for appointment following a medical examination, which revealed tattoos on his left forearm and left side of his chest.

 

Rao, who had applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive) through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) in CISF, challenged the decision.

 

He argued that the CISF should have allowed him time to remove the tattoos before the Review Medical Examination (RME), as tattoos could be easily removed.

 

In response, the CISF explained that the presence of tattoos on the left forearm is allowed, but only on the inner aspect.

 

This guideline had been clearly outlined in the 2021 Revised Uniform Guidelines for Review Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, which the petitioner had been aware of as a member of the armed forces.

 

Despite being aware of this restriction, the petitioner had tattoos on the outer surface of his left forearm, which disqualified him from consideration for the ASI post.

 

The Delhi High Court, after carefully reviewing the case, referred to a Supreme Court ruling and clarified that the LDCE process, which allows for appointments to higher posts by individuals already in lower positions, is a form of accelerated promotion.

 

However, it cannot be treated the same as a normal promotion. The court highlighted that the candidate must comply with all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the post, and in this case, the tattoo restriction was one of those conditions.

 

The court also noted that as a member of the armed forces, the petitioner should have known about the prohibition of tattoos on the outer forearm. Even though he was applying through LDCE, he was still expected to meet the same medical standards as any direct recruit.

 

The presence of tattoos on his body violated the specified criteria, and Rao could not claim exceptions based on his prior service.