ITBP Recruitment: Punjab, Haryana HC Upholds Rejection of Aspirant's Candidature Over Forearm Tattoo

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the judgement that a candidate’s application for a constable job with the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) should be rejected because of a tattoo on his right forearm. According to Live Law, the panel chaired by Justice Jagmohan Bansal based its verdict on a decision made by the Delhi High Court in the case of Vikash Kumar vs. Director General, Indo-Tibetan (2021), which dealt with a similar issue. In that case, the High Court had stated its opinion that the petition could not be accepted given a particular clause prohibiting applicants with tattoos on their right arms. Additionally, officials could not be instructed to investigate the petitioner’s claim.

In this particular matter, the petitioner submitted an application for the position of Constable in the ITBP in response to an advertisement published in 2017. He passed all of the evaluation rounds, including the Physical Endurance Test/Physical Standard Test. He was, however, disqualified as a result of a tattoo on his right arm. People with tattoos on this region of the arm were excluded for consideration, per the rules of the recruitment advertisement. Monu, the petitioner, asked the High Court to throw out two medical unfitness certificates that had found him unfit for the ITBP constable position.

The lawyer who represented the petitioner argued that since the tattoo was removed by straightforward surgery, it is a treatable imperfection and the applicant should not be disqualified from consideration for ITBP recruitment—especially since he has completed all the necessary formalities and is mentally and physically fit.

Additionally, it was contended that since he is not suffering from any illness, it would be unjust to deprive him of the benefits of the position.

However, the counsel for the respondents argued that because the advertising [Paragraph 4.4(iv) of the advertisement] contained a particular requirement, the respondent authorities were left with no choice.

Live law additionally reported that the removal of a tattoo at a later point in time was also argued to be unjustified since the respondent authorities (in this case ITBP) are unable to review each and every instance, despite the advertising expressly stating that a tattoo should not be worn on the right arm of the applicant.

The Court rejected his appeal and affirmed the denial of his candidature in light of these circumstances and the Delhi High Court’s ruling in the Vikash Kumar case.