​Two CRPF inspectors clear every round of promotion exam, then failed over forearm tattoo: Delhi HC refuses relief despite tattoo removal; tattoos went unnoticed since joining

Two CRPF inspectors who cleared every round of a promotion examination were turned away at the final medical stage, rejected solely because of tattoos on their right forearms. They went to the Delhi High Court. The court has now dismissed both their petitions.

The two petitioners, Ankit Maan and Pradhan Choudhary, were both serving inspectors in the Central Reserve Police Force. Maan had joined as a Sub Inspector in 2012 and was promoted to Inspector in 2022. Choudhary had joined as a Constable in 2010 and was promoted to Inspector in 2023.

Both applied for the post of Assistant Commandant through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination 2023, which was advertised in April 2024.


They cleared everything, until the medical

The two officers sailed through the written examination in June 2024 and were declared fit in the Physical Standard and Physical Efficiency Tests the following month.

It was at the Detailed Medical Examination on 30 August 2024 that both were declared unfit — not for any health condition, but because of a tattoo on their right forearm, which is the saluting arm.

They applied for a Review Medical Examination. It was conducted the very next day, 31 August 2024. The review board confirmed the finding on 3 September: unfit, same reason.

Both then moved the Delhi High Court.

What made the case complicated

The petitioners' argument had a straightforward logic to it. Both men had carried the same tattoos when they were first inducted into CRPF years earlier, one in 2010 and the other in 2012. The tattoos had never been a problem through years of service or their promotions to Inspector. They became a disqualification only when the men sought to move up to Assistant Commandant through the LDCE.

Their counsel also pointed out that the recruitment advertisement had made no specific mention of any bar on tattoos. And crucially, both petitioners had the tattoos surgically removed immediately after the review medical examination result came in. They sought a direction for a fresh medical board to examine them in their current, tattoo-free state.

Their counsel cited multiple Delhi High Court decisions where candidates in similar situations had been permitted a fresh review medical examination after removing a disqualifying imperfection.

What the government argued

The respondents raised three points. First, all vacancies for the post had already been filled, leaving no room for substantive relief. Second, the rejection was fully in line with revised medical guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under which tattoos are only permitted on the inner aspect of the left forearm or the back of the hands, with restrictions on size and content. A tattoo on the right forearm is simply not permitted. Third, the government relied on a prior Delhi High Court ruling in Gedela Chandra Sekhara Rao vs. Union of India, where a similar petition had been dismissed on the ground that serving armed forces personnel cannot claim ignorance of tattoo restrictions.

On the review examination timeline, the government pointed out that its own office memorandum dated 31 May 2021 expressly states that the review medical examination is to be conducted in continuation of the detailed medical examination, preferably the next day. The timeline was entirely in order.

What the court decided

A division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed both petitions.

On the ignorance argument, the court was unequivocal. It held that serving members of a disciplined force such as CRPF cannot be permitted to plead ignorance of medical guidelines, particularly when they are seeking promotion through a competitive examination. It followed the Gedela Chandra Sekhara Rao precedent and found no reason to take a different view.

On the review timeline, the court found no fault with the respondents. Conducting the review examination the next day was expressly what the rules required.

The strongest argument the petitioners had was the subsequent removal of their tattoos. The court addressed it directly. It held that eligibility must be assessed as on the last date of submitting the application, not at any subsequent stage. Removal of the tattoo after the medical examination, the court said, cannot cure an ineligibility that existed at the time of examination.

The court also flagged a procedural issue: the petitioners had not made the already-selected candidates parties to the petition. Granting relief would have adversely affected those candidates, making the petitions defective on that ground as well.

Both petitions were dismissed. The court, however, noted that the petitioners remain free to apply for the next examination.

Check the case judgement here: