The Bombay High Court has granted relief to a man who was denied a job in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for having a tattoo on his arm.
The court in its ruling said that the tattoo cannot be considered an impediment in his appointment, and has asked the CISF to review his claim for employment as it had been acknowledged that he was eligible for the job in every way but for his tattoo.
Job Advertisement Failed To Specify Condition
The petitioner Shridhar Mahadeo Pakhare was found medically unfit for a constable/driver in the CISF due to a tattoo on his right arm.
According to Pakhare, the job advertisement had not stated that the candidate would not be eligible for recruitment to the CISF if the candidate had a permanent tattoo. Pakhare also pointed out that the tattoo was of a religious symbol which would not interfere with the duties assigned.
He however has informed the court that he has been making efforts to remove the tattoo using laser treatment, and that over 90 per cent of it was gone now. He added that he was continuing efforts to remove it completely.
Religious Sentiments Must Be Given Weightage
A bench of R M Borde and R G Ketkar noted that “religious sentiments of a citizen” needs to be given “due weightage” while recruitment adding that exceptions to the rule are made for higher posts.
The bench stated that there was “no reason” for the hold the petitioner “ineligible,” observing that nearly 90 percent of the tattoo was now evidently removed . It said that since the petitioner was eligible for the employment in all other ways, his application must be considered.
Requirement A Discriminatory Practice
In his plea, Pakhare has said that the reason given by the Medical Board was “unreasonable” and interferes with “his religious sentiments”.
He has also observed that some selected exception was given in in the Armed Forces regarding tattoos that depict religious symbols or figures /names and said that similar exceptions should be extended by the CISF too as both are “disciplined forces.”
Pakhare has also alleged discriminatory practices by CISF as an advertisement for the post of a sub-inspector in 2017 allowed such tattoos, especially if they were religious in nature.
The court stated that simply because the post applied for by the petition was subordinate to that of the sub-inspector, “different parameters” regarding medical fitness cannot be applied. The bench has therefore said that it wasn’t “permissible” for the employer to treat differently the various classes of employees and apply “different parameters” .
In its order , the bench has directed the government to considered the petitioner’s claim for employment and has said that the medical opinion which found the petitioner ineligible due to tattoo mark should not be “construed as an impediment” .
