Dismissed

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Atul Baghel

Delhi HC20 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction for a dermatologist to examine the respondent, a Constable aspirant, to ascertain compliance with the prohibition on tattoos on the right forearm during Delhi Police recruitment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Tribunal's order exempting the respondent from tattoo rules reaffirmed subject to exceptions.

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Atul Baghel — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 379/2025, CM APPL. 1809/2025 & 1810/2025

¶4

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

ATUL BAGHEL .....Respondent Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Adv. with Ms. Unnimaya S, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶10

O R D E R (ORAL) % 20.01.2025

¶11

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶12

CM APPL. 1810/2025 (Exemption)

¶13

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

2. Application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C) 379/2025, CM APPL. 1809/2025

¶16

3. The order under challenge in this petition reads as under:

¶17

“Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised in this OA stands concluded by the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 597/2024 titled as Deepak Yadav v Staff Selection Commission & Ors. decided on 22.04.2024.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 379/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 2.01.2025 19:30:59

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

For parity of reasons, we allow the present OA in terms of the directions given in the aforesaid OA. However, for the sake of the convenience, the directions given by the Tribunal in Deepak Yadav (supra) case are reproduced below:-

¶22

“In view of the above, we dispose of the present OA(s) by directing the respondents to get the applicant(s) re-medical examination done by a duly constituted Medical Board which would include dermatologist who shall opinion in light of Clause 13.2 as to arrive at a just conclusion whether the applicant(s) are functionally fit for appointment to post of Constable in Delhi Police. It is directed that the re-medical examination shall be undertaken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to convey the decision to the respective applicant(s). In the event, the applicant(s) are found to be fit, further action shall be taken in accordance with law. No order as to costs.”

¶23

In view of the above, this OA is also disposed of in the light of aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.”

¶24

4. At the very outset, we do not see why such an order was even challenged before this Court. All that the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has done is to direct the respondent to be examined by a dermatologist, who would assess the respondent’s functional fitness for appointment to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police in the light of Clause 13.2 of the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) male and female in the Delhi Police Examination 2023. Clause 13.2 does not allow an aspirant to the post of Constable to possess any tattoo on her, or his, right forearm.

¶25

5. There is no justification whatsoever for the petitioners challenging such an innocuous order. There can be no reservation whatsoever with the candidate concerned being examined by a Dermatologist, who would assess whether the candidate does or does

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 379/2025 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 2.01.2025 19:30:59

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

not possess a tattoo on the right forearm.

¶29

6. Ms. Esha Mazumdar, the learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the judgment dated 24 July 2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Staff Selection Commission v Deepak Yadav¹ . In that case, this Court actually physically examined the candidate concerned and arrived at a conclusion that there was no visible tattoo on the right forearm of the candidate, as seen through the naked eye.

¶30

7. Instead of following that practice, we deem it appropriate to direct the Dermatologist, who would examine the respondent in terms of the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, to also keep in mind the observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Deepak Yadav .

¶31

8. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

¶32

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶33

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

¶34

JANUARY 20, 2025 dsn

¶35

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶36