Blog

Monu

 Vs.

 Union of India

2023:PHHC:107962

Coram HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

DATE: 21.08.2023

FACTS:

The essential details required for the resolution of the current petition are as follows: The petitioner, in response to Advertisement No.1 of 2017, submitted an application for the position of Constable in I.T.B.P. The petitioner successfully passed all stages of assessment, including the Physical Endurance Test/Physical Standard Test conducted on January 24, 2019. However, the petitioner was deemed ineligible due to a tattoo located on their right arm. The disqualification was based on the advertisement’s stipulation that candidates with tattoos on their right arms could not be selected.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

Notably, the Allahabad High Court has adopted a contrasting perspective on similar cases and has instructed the entities responsible for recruitment to evaluate the eligibility of candidates after the removal of their tattoos. As an illustration, earlier this year in May, the High Court instructed the Central authorities to evaluate the candidacy of an individual who participated in the 2018 BSF Head Constable (Radio Operator) examination. This instruction applied provided that the candidate takes steps to eliminate the tattoo. The Court directed the Central authorities that if the petitioner or candidate removes the specific tattoo in question, then this particular constraint should not impede their selection for the administrative positions they had applied for.

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Srijan Garg

monu-vs-union-of-india-and-others-cwp-23003-2021-punjab-and-haryana-high-court-488130