In a pivotal decision, the Gujarat High Court directed the reservation of a seat for a candidate disqualified from the constable recruitment process over scars from tattoo removal. Justice Nirzar S. Desai delivered the interim order in the case of Damor Kishor Kumar Naranbhai vs. Staff Selection Commission & Anr. (Special Civil Application No. 16967 of 2024). This case has sparked a broader discussion about procedural fairness and the rigidity of recruitment rules.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Damor Kishor Kumar Naranbhai, was a candidate in the Staff Selection Commission’s recruitment process for constables. Despite successfully passing all examinations and securing a place in the merit list, he faced disqualification during the medical examination stage. A tattoo on his right arm—designated as the “saluting arm” under recruitment rules—was deemed a disqualifying feature. In response, the petitioner underwent tattoo removal. However, scars left by the removal procedure became the reason for his disqualification, despite his compliance with the rules.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Harsh K. Raval, argued that disqualification on such grounds was arbitrary, given that the scars were an unavoidable consequence of corrective measures. Advocate Harsheel D. Shukla, representing the respondents, defended the decision, citing adherence to recruitment rules, which require uniform enforcement across candidates.
Legal Issues
1. Scope of Recruitment Rules on Physical Appearance
Whether scars resulting from corrective measures, like tattoo removal, can justify disqualification raises a question about the limits of recruitment standards.
2. Good Faith Compliance
The court was tasked with determining whether the petitioner’s proactive efforts to remove the tattoo demonstrated compliance in spirit, despite residual scars.
3. Judicial Oversight in Recruitment
The case examines the judiciary’s role in balancing strict rule enforcement with fairness, especially in cases involving uncontrollable outcomes after compliance.
Observations by the Court
In granting interim relief, Justice Nirzar S. Desai emphasized the petitioner’s intent and efforts:
– Fair Intent: “Whether the scar would last on the body or not is something beyond the control of the petitioner. Considering the intentions of the petitioner, his case deserves to be considered for interim relief.”
– Corrective Measures: The court acknowledged that the petitioner had taken appropriate steps to comply with the recruitment rules, even before the issuance of his appointment order.
The court noted that disqualifying the petitioner on the basis of residual scars ignored his proactive approach to resolving the issue flagged during medical scrutiny.
Interim Relief Granted
Justice Desai issued an interim order directing the Staff Selection Commission to reserve a seat for the petitioner pending the case’s final resolution. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 10, 2025. The court granted ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph 8(C) of the petition, ensuring that the petitioner remains in contention while the legal questions are resolved.
