JUDGMENT : 1. Let the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. Even a bare perusal of the said report reveals that the concerned authority does not even attempt to answer the Court’s specific query, as raised in the order dated 18th November, 2015, wherein the concerned respondent authority was directed to disclose its stand as to how an otherwise successful candidate can be declared as “medically” unfit merely due to presence of three tattoo marks on his person. The respondent authority was also directed to specifically state the “medical” co-relation between a tattoo mark present in the body of a person and its presence affecting the “medical” fitness of the said person. 3. It appears from paragraph 3 of the report in the form of an affidavit that when the initial medical examination of the petitioner was conducted on 9th August, 2012, he was declared “medically fit” notwithstanding the fact that he already had three tattoo marks on his person. According to the deponent, there were no instructions/guidelines on tattoo marks during that time. Subsequently, in the month of November, 2012 (i.e., three months after the petitioner was declared “medically fit”), the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, took a decision upon noticing that during various recruitment in CAPFs and AR, candidates having number of tattoo marks on various parts of body reported for enrolment, to frame a policy. As such, a policy has been framed by issuing a written order dated 16th November, 2012, by the Under Secretary of Ministry of Home, Government of India, which reads as follows: “a) Any Candidate with a small engraving/ tattoo of name or religious symbol on the inner face of the arms or hands is permitted for enrolment. b) Candidates having permanent tattoo on any other part of the body be debarred for recruitment in CAPFs & AR.” 4. According to the deponent, after the aforesaid policy came into effect, a fresh medical examination was conducted on 22nd June, 2015 and 28th July, 2015 and the petitioner was declared “UNFIT” by the Medical Board on the basis of the aforesaid policy. 5. It is pertinent to observe that the policy referred above, had not even seen light of the day when the petitioner participated in the recruitment process. It came into force subsequently, after he was found to be “medically fit”. 5. It is pertinent to observe that the policy referred above, had not even seen light of the day when the petitioner participated in the recruitment process. It came into force subsequently, after he was found to be “medically fit”. As such, it has no manner of application at all insofar as the petitioner is concerned. That apart and in any event, no candidate can be declared to be “medically” unfit merely because of presence of tattoo marks on his person. The policy of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, nowhere states that a candidate having a tattoo mark in any part of his body shall have to be declared “medically” unfit. The absence of any “medical” co-relation between a tattoo mark present in the body of a person and its presence affecting the “medical” fitness of the said person also renders the Medical Board’s decision of declaring the petitioner to be “MEDICALLY UNFIT” as bad in law. 6. The impugned order dated 1st August, 2015, issued by the Director Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Forces, Siliguri, West Bengal, therefore, is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. This Court directs the concerned authority of the Central Reserve Police Forces to forthwith reinstate the petitioner and allow him to continue his service as a Constable (GD) of the Central Reserve Police Forces. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.