“12. Strictly, there exists no tattoo post the tattoo removal surgery, and also, prima facie, the Tattoo Clause, does not stipulate that if a scar pursuant to removal of tattoo is unhealthy / unhealed, the same would lead to disqualification of a candidate, but we find that there was a cogent purpose for the Medical Board / Review Medical Board to examine the scar pursuant to the surgery to ensure that the visible part of the hand while saluting is clear in all respect. To that extent, the conclusion of the Review Medical Board, may be justified. But the fact remains that the Review Medical Board should not have examined the petitioner immediately after few days of surgery and should have given sufficient time to the petitioner to ensure healing of the scar and then decide the fitness / unfitness of the petitioner, as from the photograph of the petitioner's right forearm at ANNEXURE P-6, as well as the opinion sought by the petitioner from a skin specialist at ANNEXURE P-7 on April 20, 2024, who opined that no residue of tattoo can be seen and 2-3 sittings, would be needed for complete clearance of post-laser hyper-pigmentation, prima facie, it appears that the scar might have healed. As such, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is of the view that the appropriate shall be that the respondents conduct re-examination of the petitioner's right forearm through a new Medical Board and come to a conclusion, whether the scar on the right forearm pursuant to removal of tattoo continues to be unhealed and unhealthy or has completely healed leaving no residue of tattoo. If the view of the Medical Board is in favour of the petitioner then the respondents shall, subject to availability of the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Commandant (Group A) take further action in respect of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Commandant. Otherwise, the matter shall be treated as final
