A candidate rejected for a tattoo must receive re-examination by a medical board including a dermatologist.

The applicant, a candidate for Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police under the advertisement dated 01.09.2023, was declared medically unfit in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) for hypertension and a tattoo on his right forearm, and in the Re-medical Examination (RME) solely for the tattoo.

He had undergone laser treatment to remove it. Although his name appeared on the Reserve Panel, he was not included in the notice for document verification.

He sought examination of his current medical and functional fitness by a Dermatologist, relying on prior Tribunal and High Court decisions directing such examinations in similar cases.

The respondents opposed reconsideration, relying on the RME decision and the prescribed medical standards.

Whether the applicant should be re-medically examined by a duly constituted Medical Board including a Dermatologist to determine his present medical and functional fitness, despite the earlier RME finding of unfitness for a tattoo.

Whether the respondents’ reliance on the finality of the RME and the prescribed medical standards precluded such an examination.

Under Clause 13.2 of the relevant advertisement, the candidate’s fitness was to be assessed against the prescribed standard.

In Deepak Yadav v. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., OA No. 597/2024, the Tribunal directed re-medical examination by a duly constituted Medical Board including a Dermatologist, to assess whether candidates with tattoos were functionally fit under Clause 13.2.

The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with that direction in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Sonu, W.P.(C) No. 13610/2024, and upheld its application in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar, W.P.(C) No. 17889/2024; the latter decision also referred to the observations in Staff Selection Commission v. Deepak Yadav concerning visual assessment of the tattoo.

These authorities establish that an earlier RME finding does not bar a further examination by a Medical Board including a Dermatologist in such circumstances.

The Tribunal treated the issue as materially identical to those addressed in Deepak Yadav, Sonu and Sanjay Kumar.

It distinguished the question of whether a forearm tattoo was permissible under the medical standard—which was not disputed—from whether the applicant’s present condition should be assessed by a Dermatologist under Clause 13.2.

Because the cited decisions upheld that examination process, the earlier RME and its asserted finality did not justify refusing the applicant a re-medical examination.

The Dermatologist must assess, in light of Clause 13.2, whether the applicant is functionally fit for appointment as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police.

The examination is to be completed within 12 weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order, after which the decision must be communicated to the applicant; if found fit, further action is to be taken in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.