The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) constable aspirant challenging the rejection of his candidature on the ground of tattoo marks on his body, despite his claim that the tattoos had been removed before the review medical examination.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, in the judgment delivered last week, ruled that a candidate’s health status must be assessed as it stood on the date of the detailed medical examination, not based on subsequent changes made in anticipation of review.
“Removal of tattoo after detailed medical examination and prior to review medical examination in pursuit of being declared medically fit is found to be not permissible,” the court held.
The petitioner had applied for the post of constable in the CAPF and underwent a detailed medical examination on December 3, 2025. He was declared medically unfit due to the presence of tattoo marks—one on his right forearm and another on the right flat foot.
Subsequently, the petitioner underwent laser treatment to remove the tattoos and appeared for a review medical examination on December 6, 2025. He sought a direction from the court to be declared medically fit, arguing that he had complied with the requirements by removing the tattoos.
The Union of India opposed the petition, asserting that the tattoos were removed only on December 6, after the initial medical examination had already noted them. The government submitted documents confirming the date of tattoo removal to support its argument.
Justice Bhattacharyya noted that the rules governing CAPF recruitment clearly envisage that the medical fitness of a candidate must be judged based on their condition at the time of the detailed medical examination. While a candidate is entitled to seek a review if an anomaly is detected during the initial medical exam, they cannot rectify disqualifying conditions post facto to secure a favourable result in the review.
“It appears that the petitioner had tattoos on his body on the date of detailed medical examination and had tried to remove them on December 6 before the review medical examination,” the judge observed. “Such conduct of the petitioner is not countenanced.”
Dismissing the plea, the court held that the recruitment authorities acted within the rules and the petitioner was not entitled to relief for altering his medical condition after the relevant examination date.
